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.
C Bowen on 27 Feb 2013 at 12:59 am #
Red;
We were unhappy after the Iran sanctions bill. Now we just watch and offer comments. Your last lines were my point, though he had me fooled–I was nervous he would prove me wrong and vote against Hagel.
This is the first olive branch to the old Eastern Establishment, the actual Old Right of the Bonesman Taft Era, in action.
Savrola on 27 Feb 2013 at 1:24 am #
I think it’s a tremendous and interesting situation.
Not the least bit surprised. Politics is complicated affair too complex for the average mind to fathom, as those who’ve actually be engaged in them can attest.
My assessment of Rand is he genuinely despises most of his collegues and the Republican Party. And he also understands how the system works.
If the the Republican Establishment chooses to support Rand in Missouri, I will sit out the 2016 election.
If the GOP Establishment does not support Rand, then I will back his campaign to the hilt with money and action.
Kirt Higdon on 27 Feb 2013 at 11:52 am #
This simply too-clever-by-half opportunism. Like Red said, it pisses off both sides and (correctly) makes Rand look unprincipled to everyone. It pleases only those who want politicians to be unprincipled and opportunistic.
Hawthorne on 28 Feb 2013 at 12:52 am #
Red;
Rand voted for Lew in a meaningless contest (71-26).
He’s building his own narrative as a centrist of a different sort.