Most of you know, that when I say, “Idiot, son of Idiot, named after Idiot,” I am referring to Rand Paul (R-KY). Following in the footsteps of his malignant father, he gives “Bought Bitch Mitch” McConnell serious competition for the title of Kentuckian most likely to be certified insane. He has demonstrated, once again, that my opinion of him is correct.
It seems much of the media establishment has decided Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.) deserves to be taken seriously. He’s made seven Sunday show appearances since February; the New York Times recently described Paul has one of his party’s "rising stars"; and the Washington Post‘s Chris Cillizza last week referred to the Kentucky Republican as "the most interesting politician in the country" and "the most interesting man in the (political) world."
And yet, it’s difficult to reconcile the media adulation and Rand Paul’s occasional crackpot tendencies.
Earlier today, for example, the senator appeared on Glenn Beck’s show to discuss, among other things, the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act. The host suggested the ruling could lead to polygamy: "If you change one variable — man and a woman to man and man, and woman and woman — you cannot then tell me that you can’t logically tell me you can’t change the other variable — one man, three women. Uh, one woman, four men…. If I’m a devout Muslim and I come over here and I have three wives, who are you to say if I’m an American citizen, that I can’t have multiple marriages."
For Paul, this seemed perfectly sensible. In fact, the senator went even further than Beck. Here’s the entirety of Rand Paul’s response, in which the senator said he’s "kind of with" the unhinged host.
"I think this is the conundrum and gets back to what you were saying in the opening — whether or not churches should decide this. But it is difficult because if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further. Does it have to be humans?
"You know, I mean, so there really are, the question is what social mores, can some social mores be part of legislation? Historically we did at the state legislative level, we did allow for some social mores to be part of it. Some of them were said to be for health reasons and otherwise, but I’m kind of with you, I see the thousands-of-year tradition of the nucleus of the family unit. I also see that economically, if you just look without any kind of moral periscope and you say, what is it that is the leading cause of poverty in our country? It’s having kids without marriage. The stability of the marriage unit is enormous and we should not just say oh we’re punting on it, marriage can be anything."
… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Maddow Blog>
I rest my case. Now, I could act like a Republican and lie, making the allegation that Idiot should know, being a product of breeding with animals himself, but that would be a grave injustice. I have far too much respect for animals to believe that one would mate with Ron Paul. Animals have better taste than that!