Buffoon Watch: Rand Paul

If Rand Paul is just pretending to be a stupid lout; a churlish, sullen slob; a cheerless, dismal, ill-humored, wooden-headed rube; a pampered, privileged, petulant inert lumpish spawn of an entitled career politician; among the worst examples of political nepotism, if it is all just an act, then he's doing a spectacular  - I mean spec-fucking-tacular - job. 

But I don't he is acting. I think Rand Paul really is just a dumb, stupid, cynical mud-sucking fuck-wit of a opportunistic bottom-feeding demagogue. 

Some people may think I'm being too hard on Rand Paul. I don't who those people are, because I've yet to hear from anyone who thinks I am being too hard on him, but I'm guessing they are out there. 

Well, the fact of the matter is, seeing as stupidity is just another form entropy, and Life Itself does it's damnedest to be an-entropic, I figured I would side on the side of Life Itself against Rand Paul.

The dumb motherfucker has been off my Buffoon Watch radar for awhile, but it seems he's putting in extra effort to get back on it. Aside from abusing the particulars (such as senatorial legislative holds and ridiculous amendments) of the Senate - those practices which our Founding Fathers, seeing as they set the minimum age at 30, rather seem to have hoped would be a gathering populated by sober, mature, reflective, intelligent, reserved adults - for his own childish and self-serving ends, Rand just can't seem to be able to speak or write anything that doesn't make him sound like he's arrested at the middle school level, both intellectually and emotionally. 

Did I say middle school? Perhaps something earlier, something involving playground humor and potty jokes is more Rand's style.

When he isn't busy informing church folk that President Obama's views on marriage "couldn't get any gayer", or that, in an apparent return to adolescent bone-headedness regarding the Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of the ACA, that "just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so". Because, you know, Rand Paul, conservative respecter of societal institutions, and not an bomb-throwing anarchist, mind you, is the final arbiter of what is and is not deemed constitutional. So there. 

I could on with a list of all his half-wit antics, but fortunately, Salon.com is keeping tabs on the trail of wet little turd droppings Rand Paul is leaving for posterity. 

The latest is a letter to the editor he sent to the Louisville Courier-Journal in response to editorials they have written about him that are all, like, mean-like, and they should be, like, nice to him and all. I don't feel the need to reproduce the whole letter, given that it is mostly standard political bullshit and partisan whining, but, I would like to direct your attention to one particular item. Perhaps it is a small item, but it speaks volumes about the pretensions of the Senator - and 2016 Presidential hopeful as his father continues to groom the lice off him like an old chimp - Rand Paul:

"Recently, the Courier-Journal editorial page took a number of pointed attacks at me, misrepresenting me and my efforts to serve the people of the commonwealth of Kentucky. I have approached legislating with a sense of moderation that seems to be lost on my critics, and I would like to clear the air. To be moderate is often held up as the paragon of modern political virtue. With apologies to the Bard, today’s narrative argues that: to be uncompromising is to err, to be moderate is divine-"

I hate to sound like your 7th-grade English teacher, Rand, but, uh.... That quote you just mangled? "To err is human, to forgive divine"? That was by Alexander Pope. Not Shakespeare. True, Pope was known as the Bard of Twickenham. But to capitalize The Bard is generally viewed as to refer to the Stratford-on-Avon guy. Which, with just a small amount of lazy googling, you could have avoided fucking up on. 

But see? Now everyone knows that you wrote this letter, Rand! Because your intelligent staff persons, the ones that roll their eyes from behind you on camera, wouldn't have committed a fuckup like that.

Secondly, when writing an essay, you get you point out up front, and then argue it. So, your main point is? "Despite what people say, I am a moderate". So, what you don't want to do is then present being a moderate as something bad, since you present yourself as a moderate,  and, seeing as you've made your argument that moderation - bipartisanship, cooperation, reaching across the aisle,  doing good by the country - is bad, you're doing what now? 

And in the future, see if you can avoid using 'scare quotes'. 


That just makes you come across as some kind of a smarmy fuckface.