Archive for the 'Rand Paul' Category

June 11th 2013
Rand and the hour

Posted under Rand Paul

This is Rand Paul’s hour or moment or whatever designation of time you wish to give. All the revelations of government invasion of personal privacy, whether it be in journalism or tax records or phone calls and web searches all come back to the argument both Rand and his father for even an longer period of time and that is the driving engine of the growth of the federal government is the national security/military/industrial complex. There is no other way around this argument.

Considering the scope of Federal government’s power and the potential abuse of that power over millions of citizens of this country, the idea that a laissez-faire philosophy towards the economy can be maintains while the Feds can happily snoop into your mail or harass your civic group in complex tax law is ridiculous. It is a Sam Francis version of anarcho-tyranny where businesses are free to hire illegal immigrants but you as a citizens are being watched 24/7 to make sure you don’t violate the law. You can be felt up by the TSA at the airport but fellow in business class can plan his tax shelters with his lawyer on the flight. Or governments can seize your land for private developers under eminent domain laws yet put you in jail for protesting such actions because you made a terrorist threat.

The natural absurdities in such a system are perfect targets for Rand Paul and others to both attack and create a standard to rally around in opposition. But all these “scandals” of the omnipotent state are also valuable educations to those well-meaning citizens who don’t want to be treated as a potential spy or enemy and yet seem to also want some sort security for their lives as well. Total security is not possible, certainly not when PFCs or young hipster IT people can leak classified information almost at will. Yet you will get the total state in return for this impossible dream and then they will tell you in order to get one you have to accept the other and chase it like a hamster on a wheel.

It’s also a wake up call for Rand to realize and understand what he is getting into. If elected President someday he will inherit all of this apparatus and it can easily control him if turn him into a limping capon as it has done to President Obama. If being means being a Prisoner of the State, then it is not worth it. The disillusion which would follow would be almost heartbreaking. The meaning of a Rand Paul presidency or even candidacy has to be the deconstruction of such a state. There is no other purpose, none that which a dozen other politicians could do the same. It is the meaning of the very movement which made Rand a senator to being with.

Say what you want about President Obama but at least under him the Democrat Party is starting to make sense: total security at home and total security in economy. This wasn’t always the case. In fact the opposite was true before the Clintons and Obamas occupied the White House. This only made the party look as silly as the GOP does now, pretending you can reduce government while keeping the same level of surveillance over the citizenry. If there is going to be an internal GOP conflict it will be between those who truly wish to reduce the power of the modern state and those who have come to terms with it (even if their rhetoric still lies), not between imaginary moderates and conservatives or the “establishment” and the Tea Party. Even if a Republican doesn’t win the White House the nominating process for President will be important if only to establish who is going to ultimately win this struggle. Either the party will be a true opposition to what the Democrats have become or be it’s “me too” shadow which so many Republicans are doing right now, falling all over themselves in agreeing with the President on the need for the total state. Rand can lead this opposition but he has to overcome his own fears of politics.

14 Comments »

May 22nd 2013
Populism: A Party Alternative to Libertarianism

Posted under Libertarian Party & Politics & Rand Paul

The growing, relatively-soon-to-be majority (link is likely an underestimate), nonwhite population favours handouts. Rather than fighting a futile struggle to convert this group to an absurd libertarian ideology that few of us are deluded enough to believe in, perhaps we ought to reconsider our priorities.

Democracies are said to fail when the voting poor realise they can vote for handouts; but if this is going to happen anyway, then we ought to be the ones buying votes. Perhaps we ought to be the ring-givers, so to speak. Adopt popular positions; drop unpopular positions: sell-out except on the most vital issues. What is more important than saving working Americans from being overtaxed by the lazy? Immigration for starters! Also trade agreements, foreign wars, free speech, homeschooling, gun rights, affirmative action, the banking system.

Currently the GOP is fighting a losing battle for its foreign empire. A populist revolt would abandon these war hawks as dead weight. The war hawks are destined to fall as the US goes bankrupt. Populists should not allow themselves to be pulled down with them if possible.

I’m not a political science guru – just my thoughts.

An alternative is to pursue a strategy of political marginalisation to encourage secession by a dispossessed white minority. This latter seems to be the strategy most on the right favour. Rand Paul might win in 2016. That would be wonderful if he could reform the banking system, but beyond that libertarianism obviously has no future in the US. The ideology is like communism, unworkable; and voters want handouts.

12 Comments »

May 21st 2013
The Prisoner

Posted under Rand Paul

A word of warning to all you Rand Paul fans. Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.

I’m talking the Presidency of the United States of course and while its inspiring to think what Sen. Paul could do in the Oval Office, chances are he could stepping into a prison cell come Jan. 2017.

Continue Reading »

12 Comments »

April 29th 2013
The Wall Street Journal Goes After Rand Paul Again

Posted under Interventionism & Media & Police State & Rand Paul

The War … err … I mean Wall Street Journal has gone after Rand Paul again. We discussed the last WSJ vs. Rand Paul incident here.

If the last week has made anything clear about the Wall Street Journal editorial board, it’s 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 paper’s web show to offer up what can only be described as a trashing of the Kentucky senator.

Read more at Mediaite

We’re not happy with all of the Younger Paul’s positions, but he has sure managed to attract the right enemies.

1 Comment »

April 26th 2013
The Interventionists Aren’t Happy About Ron Paul’s New Foreign Policy Think Tank

Posted under Foreign affairs & Interventionism & Political Correctness & Rand Paul & Ron Paul

The memo has apparently gone out. Smear Ron Paul’s new think tank.

Jamie (now James?) Kirchick writes this for The Daily Beast. I’m Shocked! Just Shocked! That PC enforcer hack Jamie Kirchick has written another PC smear job about Ron Paul. Who would have guessed it?

Jamie Weinstein writes this at The Daily Caller. What’s up with Jamies being PC thought policers?

Walter Russell Meade says Ron Paul’s Institute will hurt Rand’s chance at becoming President. This is a not so veiled threat. “Shut up with the wrongthink Ron, or your kid gets it!”

The Week piles on, attempting to reinforce the Rand Paul link.

Tom Woods replies here and here.

Woods does what libertarians are wont to do and immediately appeals to libertarian first principles. Appealing to first principles is fine. I appeal to Constitutionalist first principles all the time. But when it comes to this thought policing nonsense, I think the thought policers need to be called out for being the pathetic little weeniefied thought slaves that they are.

Kirchick, Weinstein and Meade, grow a pair of intellectual balls, and quit being rightthink enforcers for the Conventional Wisdom. I do not believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but I don’t go running for the tall grass like some sort of intellectual fraidy cat at the suggestion. This desire to stamp out wrongthink is MUCH more dangerous than the wrongthink itself. Perhaps you should actually engage an argument rather than point and ridicule like some sort of middle school mean girl.

You have to wonder what is going on inside the head of people like Kirchick who seem to relish the role of righthink hit-man. Man up, develop some intellectual testosterone, and HAVE A FREE THOUGHT EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE!

5 Comments »

April 22nd 2013
If Rand Paul Wants to Make Himself Useful…

Posted under Police State & Rand Paul

In the wake of Rand Paul’s recent caves to Political Correctness on immigration and racial pandering, he might want to do something to make himself useful again. A good start would be for him to denounce the hysterical police state tactics in Boston and the calls to declare the surviving suspect an enemy combatant. The War Street Journal has already called him out on this by name. He needs to step up to the plate and reply.

The Boston bombing also ought to chasten Senators Rand Paul, Mike Lee and other libertarians who keep insisting that the U.S. homeland is not part of the terror battlefield…

Boylston Street sure looked like a battlefield on Monday, and so did Watertown on Thursday night. The artificial distinction is Mr. Paul’s focus on geography. The vital distinction for public safety is between common criminals, who deserve due process protections, and enemy combatants at war with the U.S., wherever they are.

Read more…

The fact that Watertown looked like a battlefield on Friday is the problem.

7 Comments »

April 12th 2013
16 RINOs Vote to Defeat Paul, Cruz, Lee Filibuster Against Gun Control

Posted under Gun Control & Rand Paul & Republican Party & Second Amendment

Here is the list of traitors. Give them a call and let them know what you think.

  • Lindsey Graham (SC)  (202) 224-5972
  • Lamar Alexander (TN)  (202) 224-4944
  • Kelly Ayotte (NH)  (202) 224-3324
  • Richard Burr (NC)  (202) 224-3154
  • Saxby Chambliss (GA)  (202) 224-3521
  • John McCain (AZ)  (202) 224-2235
  • Tom Coburn (OK)  (202) 224-5754
  • Susan Collins (ME)  (202) 224-2523
  • Bob Corker (TN)  (202) 224-3344
  • Jeff Flake (AZ)  (202) 224-4521
  • John Hoeven (ND)  (202) 224-2551
  • Johnny Isakson (GA)  (202) 224-3643
  • Dean Heller (NV)  (202) 224-6244
  • Mark Kirk (IL)  (202) 224-2854
  • Pat Toomey (PA)  (202) 224-4254
  • Roger Wicker (MS)  (202) 224-6253

Notice that Jeff Flake, who is often described as “libertarian leaning,” was amoung the traitors. So was Pat Toomey. Remember him? He is that raging right-winger everyone was supposed to be so excited about when he challenged Arlen Specter. The most surprising to me is Tom Coburn. He is generally one of the better Senators. Every one of these clowns needs a primary challenger.

2 Comments »

April 11th 2013
Rand Paul Does the PC Pander at Howard University

Posted under Political Correctness & Rand Paul

If Lindsey Graham can be Linsey Grahamnesty, then I suggest that Rand Paul become Rander Paul in tribute to his ability to pander with the best of them. First Israel. Then amnesty. Now PC. Ugh!

What is sad is that I suspect that Rand thinks he was being brave by going to Howard University to address a hostile audience, and I suspect a lot of conservatives will give him credit for bravery for doing so. But what he said was pure PC pandering. It wasn’t brave at all. Rand criticized the Civil Rights Act in the past but quickly backtracked like a whipped puppy when he came under fire for it. Here he made sure to emphasize that he has always supported the Civil Rights Act. Of course Rand’s father knew, correctly, that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional. Rand also babbled the same old Republican line that the Republican Party has always been the Party of civil rights. As I explained in my post about the racial controversy at CPAC, this is technically true but misleading. In many ways the Democrat Party and the Republican Party switched places during the civil rights era and beyond. Blacks’ allegiance switched to the Democrat Party during FDR’s reign and beyond. The forces of conservatism in general resisted civil rights legislation, so claiming that a liberal Republican from the Northeast supported the Civil Rights Act while Southern Democrats didn’t is meaningless as the forces are allied today. Not only is this pandering, it is intellectually lazy. Did Rand write this speech? Surely he approved it beforehand.

For comparison, here is what Paul the Greater said about the unconstitutionality of the Civil Rights Act.

Unfortunately, Paul the Lesser continues to demonstrate that he is not his father.

CHT Poll: Should we address Rand Paul as a.) Paul the Lesser or b.) Rander Paul? :-)

16 Comments »

March 29th 2013
Rand Paul V. 1.0

Posted under Paleoconservatism & Rand Paul

Paleodom was very interested in the success of Jim Webb (and his failure), all those many years ago.  His defense of the Celt warrior being  (note, Human Events posted a review, very similar to what was found in the pages of Chronicles Magazine) was the stuff of legend.  His electoral victory for a US Senate seat (hint: this might have something to do with Rand Paul) was highlighted by one stunt in his Senate career, refusing to shake W.’s hand/suggesting he wanted to slug (hint: a failed, sadly, act of political theater, in wrestling speak, failed to get over)–Webb had a boy in theater at the time.  Nary a filibuster from him.

Webb’s failure to capitalize on his populist standing to effective political opposition on the immigration question (there were no paleos in Webb’s circle), even with the ‘other’ power in charge, proved fatal, and Webb declined to run for a second term.  (I’ll note there are other Webbs who might win Democrat primaries down South, as has been mentioned.)

Webb has not gone into the night.  As Mark Sanford (and for that matter, Petraeus)  continues to rehab his standing (primary fight coming up), so too, Webb, who had an article in National Interest this month that favors the non-interventionist outlook, yet appeals to elite opinion.  Proof being that George Will wrote about it.

It’s the best, and worst of times, to be a paleo.

No Comments »

March 22nd 2013
#Don’tStandWithRand on Immigration Flip-Flop

Posted under Election 2016 & Immigration & Rand Paul & Republican Party

Sorry this is a little delinquent, but I’ve been busy and haven’t been able to get this post up. Most of you probably already know that Rand Paul stirred up a bit of a hornests’ nest when he spoke to a Hispanic organization on Tuesday where he endorsed a path to legal residence. The speech was typical pro-immigration cliches and platitudes. Intially it was reported that he had endorsed a path to citizenship, but Rand protested and said he hadn’t. What he had actually endorsed was a path to legal residence which is only marginally better. So this generation of illegals won’t get to vote for bigger government, but their birthright citizen children will. Great, we get to put off our electoral irrelevance for a few more years.

I really do not believe that Rand Paul is the master political operator many seem to think he is. The filibuster was a masterstroke of political theater, but I’m not convinced he didn’t just bumble into it. There is no way he could have anticipated what happened. I think he was primarily trying to throw a bone to his libertarian base that he had pissed off with his hamhanded handling of the Hagel nomination.

On immigration, Rand doesn’t seem to know what he has gotten himself into. The best thing he could have done politically would have been to either keep his mouth shut on the issue and let his past campaign statements stand or repeat simple secure the borders boilerplate. He should have let Rubio and the rest of his potential rivals step out in front on amnesty, then in the end (2016) he could have said he was the only one still holding the line. It seems to me that he didn’t want Rubio and company to get too far out in front of him, but at the same time wanted to split the difference. Hence, a path to legal residence vs. a path to citizenship. (A path to legal residence was actually the position that Jeb Bush endorsed in his book then fell all over himself to reject once it was published.)

There are a bunch of articles I could link to since his flip-flop has been so much discussed. VDARE in particular is ripping into him. Here are a few of the better ones.

Michael Thompson at WND documents that this is, in fact, a flip-flop for Rand

John Derbyshire takes Rand to task, and praises Ann Coulter.

Washington Watcher isn’t pleased either.

16 Comments »

March 17th 2013
Rand Paul wins “C”PAC Straw

Posted under Conservatism & Election 2016 & Paleoconservatism & Rand Paul & Republican Party

Senator Rand Paul won the “C”PAC vote, which is both impressive, and a reminder that the bad guys are onto him.

Back in the day, Ron Paul folks had to actually travel and buy tickets–but then they got to boo Dick Cheney and Rummy, so I can see how it would be worth the price for a little political theater.

Senator Rubio came in second, and must be feeling concerned about the whole Amnesty Bill  he is promoting with Lindsey Graham and John McCain.

The paleo simply notes that without a dog in the fight, there is only one potential free agent, Rand Paul, who might take some tactical advice.

3 Comments »

March 15th 2013
CPAC Miscellany

Posted under Conservatism & Immigration & Rand Paul

There is so much CPAP info out there in the conservative blogosphere, this is just a summary of some things that caught my attention.

From the Palmetto Patriot’s Facebook page: “I have it on good authority that CPAC is going to be covered with ‘secede’ stickers. We shall see if the ‘respectable conservatives’ there mention it.”

The consensus seems to be that Rand Paul wowed them.

See TAC

See WND

Time: “Rand Paul Steals Show from Marco Rubio

The Daily Beast: “Rand Paul is so Hot Right Now

And here are a couple of stories from VDARE. (VDARE has been on fire lately.)

James Kirkpatrick on the CPAC immigration panel.

And Patrick Cleburne at VDARE.

5 Comments »

March 12th 2013
More Rand Paul Reax

Posted under Conservatism & Interventionism & NeoCons & Paleoconservatism & Rand Paul

Because the Rand Paul dead horse still needs more beating:

Daniel Laison comments on “Movement Conservative Reactions…”

Larison’s comments are in response to this article by Jim Antle.

Aaron Wolfe on the reaction of National Review. Aaron, quoting Sam Francis, makes an important point here. Neocons (and mainstream conservatives in general) have always taken a dim view of extremism qua extremism?

James Kirkpatrick at VDARE takes a more critical view of Rand.

Pat Buchanan asks “Who Now Speaks for the GOP?…

Justin Raimondo appears to have climbed aboard the Rand train. See here and here. Before he was highly critical of Rand.

1 Comment »

March 12th 2013
Rand Paul, our hero?

Posted under Interventionism & Israel & Rand Paul

Hardly. As I’ve previously argued (see here and here), I see Rand Paul as yet another deceptive politician who intends to save the Empire by nullifying its critics. He mouths the words that attract critics of militarism, but turns around and pledges support for even more military adventures. Here’s one admirer who supports Rand Paul for just that reason:

While Sen. Paul has fought to de-authorize the War on Terror and explicitly delink sanctions from war as a response to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he also voted yes on the sanctions. While he repeated Ron Paul’s position about ending foreign aid to Israel, he has prioritized ending foreign aid and military sales to Israel’s enemies first and even declared in January that an attack on the Jewish state should be treated as an attack on the United States. In a major foreign policy address in February, he made clear he was not a carbon copy of his father. “There are definite differences,” he declared.

When Neocons and faux libertarians make love eyes at the same politician, something’s up.

15 Comments »

March 9th 2013
Rand Paul Yells “Stop”

Posted under Interventionism & Obama & Rand Paul

The following essay was submitted by Alan Cornett. Mr. Cornett is a minister, a former associate of Russell Kirk, and most importantly, a man of fine sartorial tastes.

Rand Paul Yells “Stop!”

Rand Paul, in a spontaneous act of political naysaying, captured the imagination of conservatives across the country on Wednesday as he filibustered the confirmation of John Brennan as head of the CIA. Twitter was, well, atwitter and C-SPAN gained an actual audience while Paul brought the first breath of life to a dreary GOP since Mitt Romney’s ugly defeat in November.

Paul’s issue wasn’t really Brennan, but rather forcing the administration to admit they couldn’t blow up Americans. No one thinks that Obama & Co. are scheming to launch domestic drone attacks. But this is an administration that acknowledges no theoretical limit to its own authority. The President simply did not want to concede the point; the Nobel Peace Prize winner prefers to dictate rather than to be dictated to.

For Paul to succeed in forcing the administration’s hand to admit, at least on paper, that they could not kill an American citizen on domestic soil just because they wanted to came as a surprise to just about everyone including, I’m sure, Rand Paul himself. As it was the second embarrassment to the administration in a week (the sequester failing as economic Armageddon being the first), it may be that the wings of Icarus are finally beginning to melt.

But Paul’s challenge to a hypothetical domestic drone program is at root as much about challenging a Republican foreign policy that has largely been unquestioned by its leaders since 911 as it was a stick in the eye to a hubristic administration. Paul’s slight of hand was to mask this internal challenge as a partisan rallying point.

While Rand Paul stood for the Bill of Rights on the Senate floor, a score of Republican Senators dined out with the President he chastised. Among them were drone lovers Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. On Thursday while the administration’s Attorney General Eric Holder drafted a statement admitting that of course they couldn’t blow up Americans here in the good ol’ US of A, Obama’s GOP dinner companions decried Paul’s filibuster.

McCain worried the Democrats might see all this filibustering as abusing precious Senate rules, calling it “ridiculous.” Graham allowed as how the filibuster was reason enough to cause him to vote to confirm Brennan. They sounded like yesterday’s men, managers of the status quo. Paul was unconcerned with Brennan per se, of course, but now McCain and Graham have given a de facto endorsement of a drone position that even Obama officially repudiates.

Some Senators did sense the shifting winds, most notably Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky’s other Senator, who joined Paul on the Senate floor. McConnell faces re-election next year and no doubt sees siding with Paul during his shining moment as advantageous. But now the Senate’s highest ranking leadership has acknowledged Paul’s agenda as a sympathetic one. There is at least a crack where there was none before.

Rush Limbaugh, supportive yet wary, spoke with Paul on his radio show. Rush applauded the filibuster stand, but question Paul about his overall drone position, sensing that Paul really is hacking at the root of a foreign policy that Rush has done much to prop up. Paul conceded drone use in foreign combat, but wisely returned the issue civil liberties. That is his wedge: a plea to Constitutionalism in order to reshape the thinking of a party that has gone far astray.

For at least 48 hours the debate parameters changed, and not inconsequentially a President backed down. Rand Paul showed that it is still possible to stand athwart history and yell stop.

Alan Cornett on Twitter: @alancornett

3 Comments »

March 7th 2013
Rand Paul Makes White House Blink

Posted under Interventionism & Obama & Rand Paul

The White House has blinked.

See this from the Capitalism Institute.

See this from the Washington Examiner.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney quoted from the letter that Holder sent to Paul today. “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on an American soil?” Holder wrote, per Carney. “The answer is no.”

This is progress. A straight “no” is better than evasion. Paul indicates he is “quiet happy” with the answer. But the key issue, IMO, is the word “combat” which I will try to explain in a longer post when I have time.

17 Comments »

March 7th 2013
John McCain and Lindsey Graham Attack Rand Paul

Posted under Interventionism & Rand Paul

I’ll have more to say on the Rand Paul filibuster and the drone issue later, but I wanted to get this up quickly while the news is hot. Best bud war shills McAmnesty and Grahamesty have both condemned Rand Paul. How dare he not trust the Fed Gov. He must be some sort of conspiracy theorist.

See Reason here.

See AntiWar here.

The Wall Street Journal is not pleased with Rand.

Here are the Senators that (belatedly) stood with Paul.

Update: See the Washington Times here.

See NewsMax here.

Rod Dreher

1 Comment »

February 28th 2013
Before and against

Posted under Rand Paul

The U.S. Senate’s Constitutional role when it comes to the President’s cabinet is to “advise and consent”. In the case of Sen Rand Paul of Kentucky, “advise and consent” became the art of being for something before against ala another former senator, John Kerry.

I agree with Ross Douthat that  Rand Paul  trying to meet the “base” halfway with calls for realism and non-interventionism in U.S. foreign policy and for the Republican Party. But here’s the problem: Other people who are just as ambitious as he is and represent powerful intra-party factions will do anything in their power to try and halt those ambitions, and his John Kerry-like conduct over the Hagel nomination simply gives them the ammunition they need to shoot at him. Being “middle-of-the-road” only caused him to be hit by traffic on both sides of the street.

What Rand never understood was the symbolic struggle for power behind the Hagel nomination and what it said about the Bush II foreign policy legacy within the Republican Party. Hagel is certainly no Bob Taft, everyone knows this. But the fact the neocons were willing to make this their Waterloo made the nomination battle the perfect forum to criticize their ideology and take advantage of their defeat. Instead of that, Rand joined filibustering of a Presidential cabinet choice for the most demagogic reasons and in failing to stop him (which he was doing by being a part of the filibuster), basically said “Okay Mr. President you can have your Secretary of Defense who I voted twice to make sure he never would become Secretary of Defense. Here’s my stamp of approval.”

This was the time to take a stand against the neocons and instead Rand acted silly. Hopefully the episode will be long forgotten by 2015/16 but I’m sure Rand’s ideological opponents will make sure it won’t be. That would have been true either way but at least had Rand acted more intelligently, they’re attacks would be no more devastating than pin-pricks. Now they may have a little more weight behind them. Douthat may be right in that the “base” doesn’t really have foreign policy positions compared to sympathies but they’re a lot less likely to understand why a person was opposed to something before he decided to support it.

 The bottom line is the America of “smaller government” is not going to be the colossus striding over the world of one’s youth. This is the fundamental truth that Rand Paul or somebody has to convince “the base” of otherwise they should be Obama supporters because at least by supporting the Democrats you still get to blow people to smithereens by orders of the President, it’s just only done by computer technology instead of aircraft carrier battle groups. Conservatives will never solve their internal debates until they realize this, even if it’s in sad conclusion. Otherwise, stop acting like libertarians when you clearly aren’t.

 

16 Comments »

February 26th 2013
Rand Paul Votes Against Cloture for Hagel Confirmation but then Votes for Hagel’s Confirmation

Posted under Foreign affairs & Interventionism & Rand Paul

Would someone like to explain this to me either philosophically or politically?

Rand voted against cloture. 13 Republicans, including uber-hawks McCain and Graham, voted for cloture, ending the debate and moving along the question of Hagel’s confirmation. Rand was not one of them. He voted to continue the debate, essentially continuing to hold up the Hagel confirmation. Then he turned around and voted for confirmation. He was one of only 4 Republicans to vote for confirmation.

I think Rand’s initial vote in support of the filibuster was wrongheaded, but I agree with Daniel McCarthy in the second link above that to vote for cloture the second time after voting against it the first time would have been politically silly. It wouldn’t win back the non-interventionists and would hurt him with the hawks he’s courting. But the same goes with voting for Hagel’s confirmation. Once he had cast his die with the anti-Hagel crowd, what did he think was to be gained by voting for the nomination? The hawks will have their ammo against him, but does he really think that the non-intervantionists will be impressed? Or that moderates will give him credit for being thoughtful? McCarthy seems to be suggesting that in the first link, but I doubt his reaction will be the common one.

C Bowen suggested in the post below that Rand got to have his cake and eat it too, but I don’t see it that way. It seems to me that he just managed to piss off everybody to no good effect. Either come out in support of Hagel and vote that way all along. You tick off the hawks but make the non-interventionists happy. Or come out against Hagel and vote that way all along. You tick of the non-interventionists but make the hawks happy. As is, he has made no one happy, and I doubt he gets much credit for being “thoughtful.”

This feels to me like he planned to vote for Hagel’s confirmation all along but the cloture issue came up and he handled that separately. I would really like to know what he was thinking.

4 Comments »

February 15th 2013
Rand Paul Supports Hagel Filibuster: The Sell Out is Complete

Posted under Election 2016 & Foreign affairs & Interventionism & Rand Paul

OK Rand apologists, spin this.

Earlier today Scott McConnell reported that Rand Paul opposed the Hagel nomination and even supported a filibuster.

But now Rand is doubling down in support of Cruz, in favor of a filibuster of Hagel on grounds that are both bogus and demagogic. (Hagel of course has answered the financial disclosure questions required for any nominee for Secretary of Defense, and in today’s Washington these are by no means perfunctory.)

So let’s be clear. If Rand Paul persists on going demagogic on Hagel, he will have established beyond any serious doubt that regardless of who his father is, he is Bill Kristol and Jennifer Rubin’s boy. It saddens me to conclude that because I like to be optimistic. But it’s a truth that must be faced.

A lot of non-interventionists were looking to the Hagel vote as a litmus test of where Rand is eventually going to settle out on foreign policy. Needless to say, he failed.

Jim Antle has a run down on the reaction of some Paul supporters here. They are not happy campers.

For the record, I’m not crazy about Hagel. Hagel is a less bellicose globalist than the hyper-bellicose globalist neocons, but he’s no non-interventionist, a distinction his non-interventionist supporters have failed to adequately make, IMO.

19 Comments »

Next »