Opinion
Why Rand Paul just can't say no to white supremacists
| 2:33 PM on 09/30/2010 | |
Republican candidate of U.S. Senate Dr. Rand Paul, R-Bowling Green, speaks at the Southern Kentucky Tea Party rally Sunday, Sept. 12, 2010 at the National Corvette Museum convention hall in Bowling Green, Ky. (AP Photo/Daily News, Alex Slitz)
Kentucky Democratic Senate candidate Jack Conway made one simple demand of his opponent, Tea Party favorite Rand Paul. The demand was to give back some money his campaign received. The money in question is not drug, or laundered money, or over the limit campaign contributions. It is the $1,200 that Paul got from unabashed white supremacists.
Former Vanderbilt professor and self-described "ethnic separatist" Virginia Abernethy gave Paul $500 in March, records show. Separatist movement leader William Johnson gave Paul $500 in August, 2009, and Carl Ford, a Mississippi attorney, and a former member of the separatist League of the South, gave Paul $400 in March. Paul campaign spokesperson Gary Howard shrugged it off as much ado about nothing, "We cannot perform background checks on all of our 35,000 plus donors."
At first glance, Paul's spokesperson is right. In the second quarter of this year, the Paul campaign reported contributions of $1.1 million. The disputed $1,200 from white supremacists is a bare drop in the campaign money bucket. But the money that he received from the white separatists may be the tip of Paul's racist funding iceberg. The assorted neo-Nazi, KKK, and Aryan nation groups have thousands of members and can funnel considerable funds to a cause or a candidate. It's no stretch to think that Paul is the candidate that they feel most comfortable giving too.
Dozens of fringe groups have endorsed Paul and are actively working for his election and they read like a who's who of militant far right anti-government groups. The groups are linked directly and indirectly through the unofficial Paul related Take Back Kentucky website. All are, and have been, potentially lucrative fundraising channels for the Paul campaign.
WATCH 'HARDBALL' COVERAGE OF THE KENTUCKY SENATE RACE:
Paul's coy refusal to give back the contributions from white supremacists, though, is much more than just the act of a principled libertarian candidate that believes that even bigots have a right to contribute to campaigns. Paul is an ultra-conservative, Tea Party backed politician who at times has been at odds with GOP mainstream leaders who at least publicly squirm at some of Paul's far out views on civil rights, social security, and government, not to mention his white supremacist ties. But Paul sniffs victory in Kentucky and he'll need to appeal to and keep his grassroots Tea Party leaning backers fired up on Election Day to win.
While Tea Party leaders loudly protest that neither their movement, nor they are racists, a sizeable number of Tea Party adherents are bigots. And given the loose, disjointed structure of the movement, and the near impossibility of purging racists overt from the various Tea Party factions, Paul cannot afford to do and say anything that will alienate any of the factions. He needs them to win.
His initial denunciation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that government passed and enforced civil rights laws did nothing to solve the country's racial ills, and worse, fueled even more racial polarization touched off a firestorm of protest from civil rights organizations, drew ridicule from the mainstream media, and stirred jitters among GOP mainstream leaders. But his stance was applauded by wide segments of Tea Party activists. Paul slightly backed away from his open assault on the Act, but his point that government should have minimal or better still, no role in civil rights laws and enforcement was made. This old, worn, and thoroughly discredited view warmed the hearts of the packs of closet bigots who long for the old days when racial and gender discrimination was the American norm and government did little to protect black rights.
Paul did see not a trace of bigotry in this. It's was a simple defense of the libertarian ideal that America must return to a small, free market driven, unobtrusive government. This position that he hides behind to explain the money he got from white supremacists and why he won't give it back isn't enough to damp down suspicions that you can judge a candidate by the company, or money he gets and keeps. Paul grasped the potential public relations disaster of this and issued another statement saying that he condemned racial hatred and discrimination. The proof, he said, is that 20 percent of his campaign staff is made up of African-Americans. But Paul still didn't offer to give back the money.
Ex-Separatist League member, Ford was asked what he thought Paul should do with the money he gave him. Ford was blunt, "He can keep my money. If he wants to send it back that's his business."
Ford doesn't have to worry. Paul just can't just say no to his and any other white supremacist's money.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He hosts a nationally broadcast political affairs radio talk show on Pacifica and KTYM Radio Los Angeles. Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: http://twitter.com/earlhutchinson
Why Rand Paul just can't say no to white supremacists
No comments:
Post a Comment