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 ...
The Mike Brown incident had nothing whatsoever to do with police militarization or racism.
I remember riots in years past, and the natguard did a fine job, seemingly with no political agenda...
yep...our hero.
I’m wondering why I should care what a “George W Bush speechwriter” thinks. George W Bush’s disastrous presidency is the reason Obama is president today.
Well, duh...that was political for Jeb’s benefit.
No, sure-loser GOPe nominees McCain and Romney are why we have Obama. Had nothing whatsoever to do with Bush.
With due respect, Bush was presiding over the biggest recession since the Depression when voters went to the polls in 2008. Stock market was diving and there was fear of bank runs. He was so unpopular the GOP didn’t want him at the 2008 GOP convention. And no GOP candidate wanted Bush campaigning with him. There was a woman carrying a sign outside the GOP convention that said “McCain = Bush” . The delegates booed her, assuming - rightly - that she was a Democrat. But would they have booed if the sign said “McCain = Reagan”? No, because Reagan was popular, but the public hated Bush and the GOP was afraid to be associated with him.
And the idiot McCain took a dive. Same with the liberal Romney.
And Bush was also presiding over TARP I — another unpopular loser of a policy that paved the way for Obama’s TARP II.
And, with all due respect, none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the topic of this thread which is the turncoat liberaltarian Rand Paul siding with the race pimps against America.
“De-paramilitarization” of police is obviously picking up a lot of momentum around the US right now, with the realization that police have no, zero need for belt fed machine guns, armored vehicles, explosive and incendiary devices, secret information provided by the feds authorizing warrantless and no-knock searches that cannot be cross-examined at trial, and SWAT teams brutalizing citizens and killing family pets over petty searches.
Yes, there are *rare* events like riots and mass shootings that need a greater police response. But that is it. In the other 99% of the US it is not needed, ever.
The logic that supports paramilitarized police could with equal justification say that there are little wars around the world, so obviously we need soldiers patrolling all of our towns, in case a war breaks out somewhere in the US.
And the idiot McCain rushing back to DC to push TARP. That sealed the deal for Obama.
It only has this to do with it: I am not inclined to see credibility in “a former George W Bush” speechwriter.
I’m 100% in favor with de-paramilitarization. But that has nothing to do with this incident.
Re: Rand Paul
Covered under the “Conclusions” section in a piece titled “FEDERAL TROOPS IN DOMESTIC DISTURBANCES” written in 1932 by then *Major* George S. Patton:
- - - - -
Warn newspapers, theaters, and churches that if they encourage the mob, they are guilty of aiding them and that their leaders will be held personally accountable.
Freedom of the press cannot be construed as “license to encourage” the armed enemies of the United States of America.
An armed mob resisting federal troops is an armed enemy. To aid an enemy is TREASON. This may not be “law,” but it is fact. When blood starts running, law stops. By the fact of bloodshed, law has demonstrated it’s futility.
- - - -
From within:
http://pattonhq.com/textfiles/federal.html
Thanks for a succinct and rational response. I agree.
It doesn’t matter who said it. The truth is the truth. Rand Paul sided with the left and helped them advance their subversive Marxist narrative.
Yep. The entire demeanor of a crowd is different when troops show up—and markedly different from when police show up with the same type of weapons.
No, Rand is right about militarization of police forces.
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.