I honestly haven’t thought about Rand Paul much in the last 4 years. But this morning I watched his interview on FOX News and was like, ‘Wha…? We agree on stuff?’ 

I had written him off years ago once he, like too many Republicans, went from a logical loathing of Donald Trump to defending his every move. In fact, the last real memory I have of Rand Paul was laughing at this hilarious tweet, featuring him and 45 way back in 2017:

“Rand Paul Mustering the Courage To Get Through the Day.” Do yourself a favor and click play, he can’t even look at Trump.

???

But back to the Fox News interview and our similarities. Firstly, he mentioned Festivus several times, and apparently writes a Festivus Report detailing questionable spending in the federal budget every year. It seems we both love airing grievances, as I also wrote my own Festivus post just last night. I would love to duel him sometime in a Feats of Strength to determine who’s actually more fiscally conservative.

Secondly, he echoed what I wrote in that post, saying people who are well-employed don’t need a stimulus check at all, but that unemployment benefits need to be increased. It was good to hear that the obvious is going through at least one person’s mind in the Senate. 

And thirdly, he mentioned that in order to get back to reining in spending we need new people in Washington. I couldn’t agree more with this and find it so frustrating that we have people in their late 70s and early 80s refusing to give up their seats term after term after term.

I do find Paul’s trivialization of science funding to be gauche, short-sighted and dishonest in his delivery. This is the entire government budget after all, and I shouldn’t have to say this, but science is important. And let’s not forget that the bill matches up with the President’s proposed budget. It’s super shady of Trump (or highlights his incompetence), that he would send off a proposal with the Secretary of Treasury and then criticize it after the bill has passed as if he had no knowledge of what was in it. Too bad he was never able to use his amazing deal-making skills to work with congress. Hashtag sarcasm.

And at the end of the day, Paul said that the only way he would vote to increase the stimulus check was if they restructure the spending bill as well, and we just don’t have time for that. It’s so infuriating that Trump would leave town without settling this. If he really cared about the $2000 he would have spoken with every Republican and made sure it happened. Or he could have perhaps dealt with this before it passed. This is just another stunt so all attention is on him. And because he hasn’t actually vetoed it everyone’s hands are tied in the meantime. A true 2020 Christmas gift for the people who really need help. Here, have some more anxiety and uncertainty. Love, Trump.

CNN vs. Fox News

Lastly, I just want to say that watching Fox and Friends was ick. I only watch it every now and then so I can try to understand how the Trump supporters in my family think, and what they are actually hearing. I’ve noticed in the past that if Trump does something really egregious Fox might not even mention it, or if they do it will be a one-liner before they move on. I think it would be a game changer if there was the option to watch CNN and Fox News spliced together. As in the 6 o’clock hour of news just toggled back and forth between segments and showed both shows in their entirety. This would have the dual benefits of A) letting people get a broader view of everything that’s going on, and B) possibly shame the anchors into being a little less biased in their reporting. Not that I’m trying to diss CNN, they are my preferred news station after all. I find their coverage to be pretty even and their personal interjections to be totally warranted, lol.

Also, I just want to drag one of the reporters on Fox and Friends, who for some reason brought up Kat Von D and twice referred to her as a man. He went on to say that she was leaving L.A. because of the egregious taxes, etc. But a simple instagram search will tell you that although she did say that and is fed up with California government, she’s actually keeping her kick-ass mansion and will continue to work in Los Angeles. She’s simply buying a second home in Indiana. And it’s historic. And they’re renovating. So it’s not exactly like she was run out of town by socialism. She’s doing so well that she can afford to pay taxes there and still have a second home in a completely different part of the country. So what was his point again? This is the silliest of examples, but it’s a basic illustration of how Fox News likes to use half-truths to push a narrative, which I find totally unacceptable.

Alright, time to zen out on egg nog and watch A Christmas Story!

Until next time,