Reviewing Rand Paul
Rand Paul stopped by the office of National Review on Monday. After spending some time with the Republican Kentucky U.S. Senate candidate, NR editor Rich Lowry offers some intriguing observations, including this insight into Paul’s oft-debated and oft-decried views on war:
He clearly thinks we have no business being in Afghanistan anymore, although he’s very reluctant to come out and say it. At one point he even seemed to suggest he doesn’t want to give his personal view of the war out of respect for the Constitution (it’s not the role of Congress to micro-manage wars).
Kelley Vlahos profiled Rand Paul in the March issue of TAC, while Jim Antle’s August cover story asks whether Rand Paul is the man to turn the anti-spending Tea Party into an anti-war party.
“At one point he even seemed to suggest he doesn’t want to give his personal view of the war out of respect for the Constitution (it’s not the role of Congress to micro-manage wars)”
I search the Constitution in vain for the provision that bars a candidate for Congress for voicing an opinion about a war.
I’m beginning to sort of loathe Rand Paul. He won’t say anything about Afghanistan because, guess what – it’s probably still fairly popular in Kentucky.
How did the great, courageous Ron Paul ever raise such a cowardly opportunist of a son?
all his critics (haterz) need to take a chill pill. none of you, including i, know anything about running a campaign. he isn’t even in the doors yet and he’s getting the spanish inquisition.
@ joseph: “none of you, including i, know anything about running a campaign.”
Maybe not, but we can all read the Constitution. Since Rand Paul made the claim, and it is false, can we not say the claim is false? If he wants to clothe his stances in “respect for the Constitution”, he ought not to lie about what it actually says.
“he isn’t even in the doors yet and he’s getting the spanish inquisition.”
We wouldn’t want to find out he thinks vocally opposing ongoing wars is unconstitutional AFTER he was “in the doors”, would we?
Don’t get me wrong; I’d still vote for the guy if I lived in Kentucky – what is the alternative? Still, this fellow isn’t going to inherit the Ron Paul movement or the anti-war right anytime soon.
I have never understood the fascination with the younger Paul. Personally, I can’t stand him. He, unlike his father, comes off as the typical, smug libertarian. It’s as though he thinks he’s the only person in the world who has ever had an original thought. He and Peter Schiff, seem to be in a contest to see who can be the biggest, well I’ll not use such a vile word in pleasant company, but if you picture the south bound end of a north bound donkey you can readily extrapolate the word I would have used.
Additionally, the younger Paul, and here I suppose he is like his father, takes his positions to nonsensical extremes. His stance on Mountain Top Removal coal mining is perhaps the best illustration of this. According to the younger Paul, the coal companies are doing the residents of Appalachia a favor by blowing the tops off of the world’s oldest mountains. His logic being that they “improving” the land by creating flat spots for shopping malls and ball fields. “You know, it’s progress. And you can’t stand in the way of progress.” To that, “I say bull pockey.”
And if that wasn’t enough, he accepted the endorsement of the thriller from Wasilla (aka known as the would be Head War Monger In Charge). If the younger Paul had any serious anti-war scruples, he would’ve said thanks but no thanks to her endorsement. Instead, he acted like every other politician and put his short-term political position ahead of the country’s best interests. Or perhaps he harbours ambitions of one day being the HWMIC?
Good luck finding the “perfect” candidate. I’m 50 and haven’t seen one yet. As the saying goes-don’t let great be the enemy of good…or something like that.