Proud to Present A Thoughtful Piece on Rand Paul
…from Ebola. That’s our boy.
So the subject of Rand Paul being the “front runner” for the distant 2016 GOP nomination came up today. I was asked why I wouldn’t vote for Rand Paul, even were he the GOP nominee. So let me explain my position:
Paul did what was right in the Senate concerning basic civil liberties protected under the Constitution. I respect him for it and supported him on it. Hell, I even watched the thing all day. The right continually bashes the left for voting for a man full of ideas that are not beneficial for the country. I don’t disagree with them. However, that is entirely hypocritical concerning Rand Paul and the Right’s current hardon for his doing the right thing on civil liberties with his filibuster. Simply put, one action does not make up for a laundry list of bad ideas. (That aside, McCain and little girl Graham can fuck themselves, I hope they lose their seats.)
The conservatives, many of my friends among them and myself, had a cardiac concerning the nomination of Hagel as Secretary of Defense. Why? Primarily due to his stand on Iran…which Rand Paul shares saying, “Our national security is not threatened by Iran having one nuclear weapon.[1]” So, everyone up in arms about Iran, but currently attempting to rub one out at the thought of a Paul Presidency? He’s his father with better PR on the matter. When one looks at his statements on Iran, he plays the card of being staunchly against the regime while at the same time being quietly fine with their having a nuclear weapon. In fact he put forward an amendment that stated the US would not enter into war with Iran, with the most inane reasoning ever[2]. I love in the video he mentions that we’ve contained North Korea, but his own vague planning looks to remove the very troops that provide that containment.
Which brings us to an even scarier father/son passage of ideologies. Paul’s very own “Platform to Revitalize America[3]” argues that the military should be downsized (page 28) through attrition and our presence overseas in our allied bases with the following, “The ability to utilize our immense air and sea power, to be anywhere in the world in a relatively short amount of time, no longer justifies our expanded presence on the ground throughout the world.” Which is the most self-contradictory bullshit in history or shows such an amazing ignorance of how we project power as to make Biden look a military genius. Our logistical structure, dependent on both our allies and our overseas bases, is the reason we *have* the capability to project a forward conventional force in a rapid method. Removing it means you no long have the ability to project and have completely lost the singular major asset the US holds against every conventional and unconventional force on the planet. But no, just like daddy, Rand will happily hand that away. However, it will again be through a more muted fashion than his father’s outright declaration of issuing an executive order to return all deployed and troops stationed over-seas back stateside.
If you remember back to Georgia conflict, Paul went against Rubio’s attempt to get Georgia speedily into NATO.
On the foreign policy front, Rand Paul *is* his father with a nice facade. His father and he alike learned the lessons of the last few Presidential bids.
In the same aforementioned document[3], he makes the same more guarded arguments his father has made against the fed and the institution of a flat-tax. A number of these ideas many conservatives can at least to some degree agree with. The point remains, it is the exact same thing his father has been saying for years with far better packaging and no nasty history to deal with. The Salon[1] piece, I hate to say, probably expressed this best: “Until a few months ago, that is, Rand Paul sounded just like Ron Paul. Yet where Rand formerly avowed his agreement with his father on most issues, today he emphasizes their differences. It is a tinge of opportunism that has infuriated some early supporters, who feel he solicited their money and endorsements and then sold them out to smooth his way into the Senate. On the website of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, for instance, where the true libertarian faith is upheld, one downcast Paul fan expressed deep frustration over his support of Gitmo and military tribunals: –What good is it to win if you don’t stand for anything? This is very disappointing. Rand Paul deceived his supporters, and took money from them without telling them about his fundamental ideological differences with his more principled and honest father.–”
I could go further, but I’ll leave it at this for the moment: I will not vote for Paul, or by proxy, his son. I see little difference between the two than a more aesthetically pleasing packaging. Doing the right thing does not excuse your beliefs in other areas as a President.
**********************************************************************************************
REF
1. http://www.salon.com/2010/05/19/rand/
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hacgYsNisb8
3. http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/A%20Platform%20to%20Revitalize%20America.pdf
4. http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/05/rand-paul-prevents-war-with-russia/
Oh, I love that young man.
People, Planet Ebola, Politics | tree hugging sister | 
March 9, 2013 11:50 am
Subscribe
Yep, Ebola speaks Truth™. I appreciate that Rand (and others) stood up to Obama and his shills. It’s more than a little worrisome that Rand did so.
Better wake up, GOP, or you will be hijacked like the Democrats were.
Amateurs talk about strategy, professionals talk about logistics. Sounds like Ebola is a pro.