Top 10 Dumbest Democrat Attacks on Rand Paul Debunked

by Josh Guckert

Since announcing his presidential campaign on Tuesday, Rand Paul has quickly become one of the most talked about people in the country. With his rhetoric on the campaign trail in Kentucky, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Iowa, he has shattered the image of what it means to be a Republican and a politician in the United States. Incorporating into his rallies men and women of different ages, races and backgrounds, Paul has proven that he is a candidate who can unite America in a way which has been lost during the Obama Administration.

However, as his popularity has risen, those over at the Democratic National Committee, ever divisive, have decided to smear and criticize Senator Paul using rather dishonest and juvenile tactics. Here is a list of just the top 10 most ignorant attacks levied against the junior Senator from Kentucky.

1. “Rand Paul doesn’t believe in gay rights.”

Posted on their Facebook page on March 31, one whole week before Senator Paul announced his candidacy, the DNC presented a 6-second clip, wherein Paul states, “I don’t think I’ve ever used the word ‘gay rights’ because I really don’t believe in rights based on your behavior.”

Blasphemy! Is Senator Paul suggesting that gay Americans have no rights and therefore should receive no protections from the Constitution? Not quite. In fact, as one can see from watching the entire question, Paul states quite the opposite. He says that he is in favor of “rights for individuals,” and against “judging individuals based on their behavior.”

He goes on to laud “blind justice” under our judicial system, including toward gay Americans.Quite ironically, and somewhat prophetically, just prior to the out-of-context quote used by the Democrats in their Facebook status, Senator Paul also derides media outlets which put “inflammatory” words in headlines in a way which misleads readers.

2. “His budget plan: more giveaways for the super wealthy and big corporations.”

Contained in a Facebook video on the day of Senator Paul’s announcement, the self-proclaimed “factivists” (which sounds and looks suspiciously like “fascists”) outline several of Paul’s “beliefs” in a misleading and arrogant manner. The last of those listed is perhaps the easiest to debunk: that Paul supports “giveaways” to the well-connected. The “factivists” back this up with a clip of Senator Paul from the Stossel show in 2012 stating that if the rich were to pay “their fair share” in taxes that they must have their taxes reduced. This is telling, as the only way in which Democrats can equate letting people keep more of their own money to a “giveaway” is if they view others’ profits as the property of the government. What might make this outrageous claim most laughable of all is that when it comes to actual “giveaways,” Senator Paul has repeatedly advocated for eliminating 100% of corporate welfare.

3. “He’s not so into” the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

It’s the myth that won’t die. Also on the day of his announcement, the Democrats included a brief clip of Paul stating that he is skeptical of Article II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which precluded private businesses from engaging in discrimination. In the full interview from 2010, Paul states that he likes the monumental legislation for ending government-mandated segregation, and that he would rally against any private entities which discriminated. However, Paul is also sympathetic to property and speech rights, as are most libertarians. Accordingly, he stated that if he were in the Senate at the time, he would have overwhelmingly supported 9 of the 10 Titles of the legislation, and perhaps attempted to modify Title II. In addition, Democrats have apparently conflated supporting the right to discriminate and supporting the act of discrimination itself, as on Friday, it premiered “No ____ Allowed” signs in its mockery of the Rand Paul store.

4. “Rand Paul clearly doesn’t understand the connection between student debt and the health of our overall economy.”

Mentioned over and over by the Democrats in the last few days is that Senator Paul opposed refinancing of student loans. It is specifically mentioned in a Medium article by Congressman Eric Swalwell explaining why Paul is “not good for young people.” The article was linked to by the Democratic Facebook page on April 7. Swalwell also expresses outrage that Paul doesn’t believe in investing in federal student grants and wants to freeze Pell grants at 2008 levels.

Perhaps Senator Paul takes all of these positions because he realizes the reality of federal investments in higher education; they have only been an example of crony capitalism, where government provides endless loans to those students who are least able to pay them back. In response, colleges, having a base of consumers with essentially unlimited money (as they may borrow as much as is necessary), raise their prices higher and higher. Today, while college educations are becoming more prevalent, their worth is becoming less, and millions of Americans are left with hundreds of thousands dollars in debt, no job and only a useless degree to show for it.

5. “He opposes marriage equality.”

Another mis-characterization spouted over and over is that Senator Paul “opposes marriage equality.” While it is true that Paul (a conservative Christian Southerner in his 50s) personally believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, he has always maintained that marriage should be kept out of the hands of the federal government, and that such issues would be best resolved by allowing private parties to contract of their own.

Most important to note is that Paul’s comments about there being a “moral crisis” concerning gay marriage are, in their totality, quite libertarian. Paul makes the case that Christians who believe that permitting same-sex marriage will result in moral decay should attempt to sway public opinion privately, rather than looking to government in Washington to solve their problems. While many may disagree that the advance of gay marriage rights is a negative, it should be easily agreed upon that any change should occur through culture and not through government coercion.

6. “He thinks climate change is [no big deal].”

Also in the Medium article by Eric Swalwell, it is stated that Paul is downplaying the importance of combating climate change. Swalwell connects Paul to Senator Jim Inhofe, who brought a snowball to the Senate floor to show that climate change isn’t as serious as believed.

However, there is then a major disconnect, as this is the quote from 2010 which is used to show that Paul does not believe in climate change: “In his speech, [Paul] denounced cap-and-trade regulations, called the EPA ‘an out-of-control regulatory agency’ and said ‘we must stop these fanatics’ who advocate government action to combat global warming.”

So not only is it not a quote from Paul, it is a quote about him which at no points indicates that he is denying man-made climate change. The quite reasonable position that Paul takes is that, while our earth is precious and deserves to be protected, it makes no sense to enact alarmist policies that will likely harm our economy more than the good which they would do for our environment. To paraphrase from Thomas Sowell, just because one doesn’t agree with your particular solution to a problem does not mean that he does not care about the problem itself.

7. He doesn’t support “women’s rights” or “women’s health.”

Once again, in the Swalwell article, the author states that Paul doesn’t support women’s rights, which is too ludicrous of a statement to even be made up. He states that this is because Rand Paul is pro-life, in favor of the Hobby Lobby decision, opposes the Violence Against Women Act and is against “equal pay” legislation.

The Hobby Lobby decision merely allowed closely-owned companies to refuse to pay for certain contraceptives which violate their religious beliefs. In that particular case, there were over a dozen different kinds of birth control which the company was willing to pay for; there were only a few so-called “abortifacients,” which were, in their minds, akin to abortion, which they did want to cover. These women could still have such products if they wish, they just have to pay for them on their own.

When it comes to the Violence Against Women Act, there is little evidence to suggest that it has done anything to combat domestic violence. Paul stated that his own reason for voting against the VAWA was that it “does not directly benefit victims of domestic violence, but goes toward domestic violence research, as well as lobbying for specific state and local law enforcement policies, such as mandatory arrest laws when responding to domestic violence incidents.” He goes on to say that “a variety of studies have shown that the enactment of mandatory arrest laws can actually aggravate further domestic violence,” as partners do not wish to see their significant others arrested. More broadly, Paul explains that “states are responsible for enacting and enforcing criminal law,” and that the VAWA “muddles the lines between federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement.”

Concerning “equal pay for equal work,” one economic study after another has shown that the tale of women earning “$0.78 for every dollar a man earns” is complete myth. This apparent discrepancy is due mostly to the personal choices that each gender makes in regard to what kinds of careers they choose. When adjusted for all important outlying factors, any difference in pay disappears.

Lastly, there is the issue of abortion. While it is true that Paul is “100% pro-life,” and that some women may take issue with that, even the most pro-choice woman would admit that it is incredibly dishonest to equate that position to being “against women’s health.” In the Democrats’ featured video on Paul’s positions, included is only one clip of Paul saying he is pro-life, and a second clip of a commentator stating that one of Paul’s bills would ban certain forms of contraception, which appears to be fairly unsubstantiated. While there is room for disagreement on abortion and when life begins, Paul’s position certainly seems to be more in line with the American public than that of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who recently responded to Paul that she believes that government should never be involved in abortion, making one wonder if she supports allowing partial-birth and third-trimester abortions.

8. He opposes “net neutrality.”

 

Such misinformation has been spread since the introduction of so-called “net neutrality” that it is difficult to find a place to start. The internet has remained mostly free of government regulation ever since its inception. “Net neutrality” was passed by the un-elected FCC to combat supposed abuses by internet service providers, while evidence of such occurrences has been scant.

All that “net neutrality” actually does is give power to the government to regulate what was one of the last free areas of our life. Instead, what should be permitted is for the free market to “regulate” whether ISPs are pleasing their customers. As is, local governments prevent other companies from competing, but if we were to eliminate that local tyranny, there would be more leeway for capitalism to do its magic.

This is yet another issue which has been created by government and then blamed on free markets. The largest companies have colluded with local officials to prevent competition. If this were not happening, Comcast and others would be beholden to its customers. If they did not provide adequate service or their prices were too high, Americans could simply switch.

The system which we have instead received is one which will likely result in big corporations receiving favors from the FCC while smaller “start-up” companies are regulated out of the industry. Even worse, government now has input on what kinds of content are seen and heard on the internet. Any number of steps could theoretically be taken by the government in the name of “net neutrality.”

9. He’s not really a “Washington Outsider.”

 

In several posts, the Democrats suggest that Rand Paul is conveniently hiding the fact that he is a Senator so that he may run as an “outsider.” However, this view is misguided; while Senator Paul has been in Washington for a little more than 4 years, he has been anything but a typical politician. He has routinely brought fresh ideas to the Senate and has done anything but fall into “business as usual.”

Maybe most humorous is viewing these criticisms of Paul is light of the fact that the two leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination are Hillary Clinton, who has spent over 20 years in Washington, and Joe Biden, who by the end of his Vice Presidency will have spent 44 consecutive years in Washington.

10. He wants to make it “harder to vote.”

Likely in reference to Paul’s position on voter identification laws, this attempt to paint his position as one which opposes democratic rule. However, Paul has stated that any ID laws should be done at the state level, and that furthermore, he understands why some might see such legislation as wrong-headed (even though he supports it) and therefore, if Republicans wish to resonate with minorities and lower-income groups, they should not make it a central part of their platform.

Further more, by introducing the REDEEM Act, Paul has pursued allowing for non-violent offenders to have their voting rights restored. In this regard, Paul is likely the only candidate in the presidential race who is working to truly expand suffrage as much as possible.