Posted on 08/16/2014 3:43:17 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Robert Patterson, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, said Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) gave "aid and comfort to the rioters and the protestors" with his op-ed in Time against the militarization of local police forces.
Appearing on Breitbart News Saturday, Patterson said that Paul was "outdoing" President Barack Obama's "attempt to show moral equivalence between the rioters and the police" with a Time op-ed that even Al Sharpton praised.
Patterson said that it is "another illustration of out-of-touch Republicans who are looking for love in all the wrong places" by "pandering to liberal and corporate elites instead of the middle america that the party needs to rebuild the center-right majority."
Patterson, who also worked for Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, said Paul "wants the affirmation of the elites and the media" because it is "a lot more fun to be lionized to by the New York Times and Time magazine" and "sit in corporate luxury boxes" than to understand the middle class that Nixon and Reagan understood is "decisive" in any national election.
Patterson said the New York Times and other mainstream media elites "look down on average, ordinary Americans" because they think they "are not as sophisticated as their intellectual" and foreign friends.
But Patterson noted these voters got Republicans out of the wilderness in the 1960s and can do so again. Echoing themes from Pat Buchanan's Encouraging The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose from Defeat to Create the New Majority, Patterson said Ronald Reagan ran on a law and order platform to become California's governor two years after Lyndon Johnson's landslide. Two years after that in 1968, Richard Nixon carried 32 states to win the White House, and Republicans saw significant gains in Congress and governorships.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Huh? Was officer Wilson a militant?
Militarizing police departments is a potential threat to everyone’s civil liberties.
What makes you think I’m in favor of that? I oppose militarization of police forces. I oppose swat teams, I oppose no knock raids. I oppose police brutality. I opp[ose racism.
But I also oppose people like Rand Paul siding with the marxist race pimps. Officer Wilson was just a cop doing his job. He was not a paramilitary unit nor was he being racist.
Agreed that this incident has little to do with de-paramilitarization. However, both proponents and opponents seize on incidents like this.
The proponents hope to use a prominent, publicly known example to illustrate their cause, even if it is not a good example.
The opponents want to use a poor example as a straw man argument to oppose the idea.
The trouble is that proponents and opponents sound much alike, and create a nebulous gray area where before there was clarity, thus diluting support for the change.
Probably the best example of the resulting confusion is the border fence with Mexico, in that its strongest supporters were often actually dead set against it, so sought to sabotage the idea from within in a number of ways.
Its seeming opponents were in some cases supporters, who were instead focused on the most efficiency in keeping out illegal aliens, only putting up fences where illegal aliens actually crossed or could cross, not in road-less and empty desert where no one crossed. Satisfied if they could keep out 90% of aliens on a budget, rather than insisting on 100% at 100 times the cost, which they knew would never be funded.
Haven’t you heard? Militarization of the police is now a good thing, or so says the Bush-loving/Rand hating establishment wing of FR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.