If the last week has made anything clear about the Wall Street Journal editorial board, its that they sure do not like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and his libertarian-leaning views on civil liberties.

Last Monday, the paper ran an editorial column lashing Sen. Paul and other libertarian-ish legislators who keep insisting that the U.S. homeland is not part of the terror battlefield in the wake of the Boston bombings. The editorial board asserted that Paul, several GOP colleagues, and anti-antiterror types on the left were making the U.S. more vulnerable by defending the bombing suspects right to due process and to be tried as a citizen of the United States.

And then this Saturday, Journal editorial writer Dorothy Rabinowitz took to the papers web show to offer up what can only be described as a trashing of the Kentucky senator.

Discussing the recent question du jour of whether Paul contradicted himself by suggesting in the wake of the Boston attacks that hed be fine with police using domestic drones to defuse active shooter situations, Rabinowitz opted for a wholly cynical analysis over a simple yes or no:

What hes for is himself and his changes in the presidential sweepstake. But if you roll back the tape to that filibuster, that extraordinary performance where he is Mr. Smith goes to Washington [in a mock Southern drawl] Im just a po boy chewin ma Snickers bar here and remember that he draped himself in the Constitution and he kept presenting this utterly false picture of people being cut down by their swimming pools by American drones. Can this happen? None of this could conceivably ever happen. But its that slippery slope that people like Rand Paul and their liberationist, anti-government frenzy like to paint.

So, she believes, he changed his position after Boston because he realized hed better be on the side of protection and surveillance.

The host then changed the subject to fire off a loaded question about whether Sen. Paul and others who believe in this theory of libertarianism that we have to give [domestic terrorists] every protection are engaging in a dangerous point of view.

Surprise! Rabinowitz agreed. Not only is the view that the younger Tsarnaev brother shouldnt be tried as an enemy combatant dangerous, it is also loathsome, she said. Loathsome because it represents the streak of libertarianism that Rand Paul represents one that she fears will push him into contention.

The two then engaged in a little banter about how Rand Pauls immigration policy puts him at odds with libertarianism, willfully (and disdainfully) neglecting the fact that Rand Paul himself has shrugged the libertarian label. It really shouldnt surprise anyone that the senator is more of what wed call a conservatarian, given his socially conservative views on multiple issues, and the fact that, indeed, he is not for a much less restrictive immigration system like most libertarians are.

But, putting facts aside, this becomes a little bit of a punching-bag situation for the two WSJ talkers. Because Rand Paul doesnt conform 100-percent to what they believe is libertarianism, he is an opportunist and a hypocrite not just, you know, a politician who never once professed to be purely libertarian.

See the original post here:

WSJ Columnist Goes Bonkers On Rand Paul For ‘Loathsome,’ ‘Liberationist’ Streak Of Libertarianism