State of the Union

Undoing the Minimization of Wages in America

Rand Paul Votes to Confirm Hagel

By Daniel McCarthy • February 26, 2013, 4:28 PM

Rand Paul joined Mike Johanns, Richard Shelby, and Thad Cochran as the four Republicans voting to confirm Hagel, who is now secretary of defense by a vote of 58-41. Senator Paul had said he believes in giving the president a fair amount of leeway in choosing his cabinet, and this vote is certainly consistent with that. Needless to say, one should not read it as suggesting that there’s no daylight between Hagel’s views and Paul’s, but it’s not just a gesture of reasonable deference to the president, either: this is a vote that may come with some real costs for Paul. It’s brave—and right.

I think Paul will continue to surprise doubters and admirers alike: he has his own way of doing things, and while it’s not a way I’m in agreement with on every point, I like the fact that he’s nobody’s robot. Surprises like these are a sign of actual reflection, not just checking boxes on somebody’s ideological list. Bravo.

Posted in Politics.

20 Responses to Rand Paul Votes to Confirm Hagel

Mario says:

February 26, 2013 at 4:45 pm

It’s clear Rand is virtually on his own in the Senate. He said that he was filibustering Hagel hoping to get information on Brennan. He also lashed out at his party last night for essentially filibustering Hagel and then just calling it off right away. I think Rand is just feeling his way around the intricacies of the Senate and how to get policy made effectively. This was a brave vote, and the neocons are already lashing out at him. Remember, it’s much harder to be a successful ideologue in the Senate than in the House.
William Dalton says:

February 26, 2013 at 4:54 pm

I don’t know how brave Rand Paul’s vote to confirm today was. The parties that opposed his Senate campaign and his father’s presidential campaigns will oppose his 2016 campaign as well, no matter how he had vote on Chuck Hagel. By casting his vote in favor of Hagel, Sen. Paul keeps open the possibility of building a coalition of voters who supported his father, Pat Buchanan, and Chuck Hagel, in their presidential aspirations. Individually, each of these men had modest support in the campaigns for the White House. But put those numbers together, and add to them the remaining “realist” faction within the Republican Party, who still esteem Sen. Hagel, and you have the core of the only possible majority that could be built by Rand Paul on his road to the White House.

Considering the earlier vote on cloture, and the vote of the junior Senator from Kentucky in opposition, one would suppose the only reason to favor keeping debate open was that there were important unanswered questions about Sen. Hagel’s suitability for the office which needed answers before a vote could be cast in his favor. Did Sen. Paul have such questions? Were they answered between his morning and afternoon votes? Inquiring minds want to know.
Chad says:

February 26, 2013 at 5:03 pm

The man just voted to not allow this vote to occur and I think it’s safe to assume his vote may have been different if he was the crucial vote to put him over the top. If this is all the “courage” it takes to stay in the graces of the libertarian camp then you’re selling your support cheap.
Clint says:

February 26, 2013 at 5:03 pm

Senator Rand Paul saw how certain neocon agendists marginalized his dad and has learned how to maneuver around their temporary choke hold on The GOP.
Red Phillips says:

February 26, 2013 at 5:52 pm

Actually, Rand just managed to piss off both sides. Dumb move politically IMO.
Cascade Joe says:

February 26, 2013 at 6:45 pm

“Actually, Rand just managed to piss off both sides. Dumb move politically IMO.”

I always thought that meant you were doing things right.
Jim Evans says:

February 26, 2013 at 8:23 pm

Nice to have that out of the way.

Now to see where Senator Paul goes.

Lots of curiosity. I’m sure he saved a lot of support with the confirming vote for Chuck Hagel.

Hopefully, Defense Secretary Hagel will be instrumental in avoiding the slippery slope towards war with Iran. And, Sen. Paul will be credited with far-sighted support of a successful Secretary of Defense.
Fran Macadam says:

February 26, 2013 at 8:45 pm

I agree with Rand Paul that getting illuminating answers from Brennan about constitutionally prohibited executive actions was extremely important. The others holding up approval for Hagel couldn’t have cared less about that.

Clint telling that empty chair, “Bring them home tomorrow, Mr. President” actually seems to have had some effect.

You just never know.
steve in ohio says:

February 26, 2013 at 9:44 pm

Talk radio hosts such as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are praising Rand Paul on a regular basis (along with Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz). I think the gentleman from Kentucky is quite shrewd and I wish him well.
William Dalton says:

February 27, 2013 at 12:31 am

David Weigel, who actually spoke to Rand Paul, reports that he voted for Hagel because he believes in giving the President his choice of Cabinet officials. But he stated the fact that Hagel’s critics attacked him with the same attacks made against Paul’s father was not sufficient reason to support Hagel. He cited a number of cases in which Hagel voted in ways contrary to the Pauls (for the Iraq War, for the Patriot Act, etc.)

But, of course, those weren’t the votes that gained Hagel the condemnation of all those other Republicans. Rand Paul better be careful – he’ll judged as being too cute by half.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/02/chuck_hagel_confirmed_as_secretary_of_defense_rand_paul_s_flip_flop_on_the.html
Pingback: LIVE AT FIVESIX: 02.27.13 : The Other McCain
CK says:

February 27, 2013 at 9:10 am

Well, that’s good news.
cka2nd says:

February 27, 2013 at 10:35 am

Cascade Joe says: “‘Actually, Rand just managed to piss off both sides. Dumb move politically IMO.’ I always thought that meant you were doing things right.”

No, it’s a cliche that has a grain of truth to it but is often wrong when applied to the complexities of the real world.
AC says:

February 27, 2013 at 10:48 am

steve in ohio: that’s an interesting point but I don’t think it necessarily means Paul is playing smart politics. He could be, but although Beck is a bit of an unpredictable loose cannon on any issue, I think it’s telling that Hannity has been praising Paul as much as he has. Hannity is a very shrewd Conservatism media Inc. operator this way; he’ll often do this w/individual politicians/celebrity conservatives and specific issues, and say how much he agrees w/so and so, but then whomever the GOP nominates, he’ll be the biggest cheerleader in the world up till election day, as if none of it really mattered very much. The fact that he has completely rolled on immigration since election day and now bought into the Rubio/McCain/Flake/WSJ/Rove/Jeb Bush narrative that this is something the GOP “simply must do” is telling as well. He knows his audience cares about this, the GOP elite doesn’t, and he’s threading the needle.

His relationship w/PJB is fascinating this way, too. He’s one of the few Conservatism Inc operators who has stayed friendly w/him, and will have him on his show when he’s got a book out, or even when he doesn’t. NR childishly pretends he doesn’t exist, and radio hosts like Mark Levin and Michael Medved would never have Buchanan on. But again, Hannity knows his audience likes PJB and reads his books, and Hannity will always, ALWAYS make a big to do when introducing him about how he hasn’t always agreed w/Pat on so and so. It’s like his little wink and a nod to the neocons who run the movement who might be listening.

By the same token, if the 2016 primaries look like a battle royale between Paul and SOME semblance of constitutionalism (nowhere near as hardcore as his dad’s) vs. the awfulness that we’ll get w/a Jeb Bush or Rubio or Lindsey Graham (God help us) or the rest of the GOPsters, I guarantee Hannity will do his best telling his radio/FoxNews audiences how he likes all of them early on, even though he’ll know behind the scenes how badly the neo establishment will be trying to crush Paul’s chances. Then, when Rubio wins the nomination he’ll act like he was Marco’s #1 SuperFan from before Iowa. He wants his audience to believe in a united conservative movement, not just a united GOP. Neither are really true.

For a guy who shows very little interest in and understanding of the full breadth of Kirkean conservatism or political philosophy in general, he’s a helluva good media manipulator at projecting himself as a “regular red stater” and a rock-ribbed conservative, etc. That’s why he’s rich and famous.
James Canning says:

February 27, 2013 at 1:42 pm

Yes, bravo. What foolishness on the part of the Republican senators who voted against confirmation of Hagel.
Pingback: Is Rand Paul a Libertarian? | THE SCARECROW
William says:

February 28, 2013 at 9:21 am

You could see this coming from a mile away, and yet Paul was really trashed just a few days before as if that previous vote mattered.

In the Conservative/Libertarian movement, we have a coalition of actors with different roles, but most are in the the bloggersphere. Let Ron Paul, JR and PJB be the firebrands. They can help wield moral and intellectual authority. For Rand, he is a democratically elected politician in a state that is actually not too conducive to our general philosophy, so he is going to have to take the long way around sometimes. Everyone should just understand that.

As for whether Rand has managed to piss off both sides, and whether thats a good thing, it depends on how royally pissed the sides are. In this case, it will be forgotten in a week – he tweaked each side a little, but nothing that will be remembered. As soon as Rand says something that Hannity loves about domestic policy, he will be a rightward star again. Rand is doing as good of a job as I could expect in the role he is in.

We better get ready to move ahead, because in a couple years when we have Rubio v. Paul erupt, you guys know which side you will be on. It will be probably as nasty as anything we have ever seen in politics – and maybe even fun. The neocons arent in full froth mode when it comes to Paul the younger, and Paul is smart for putting that off until when it is necessary to fight that battle.
WorkingClass says:

February 28, 2013 at 10:35 am

There is very little to be grateful for regarding the cesspool of graft and treachery that is the U.S. Senate. The addition of Warren and the subtraction of Lieberman is a welcome improvement. And the defeat of the war mongers on the Hagel nomination is another. My hat is off to the four Republicans who voted against the Bush/Cheney foreign policy.
WorkingClass says:

February 28, 2013 at 10:58 am

@William:

“As soon as Rand says something that Hannity loves about domestic policy, he will be a rightward star again.”

I understand and agree with what you say about Rand’s place in the party. And Ron Paul was my candidate in the last election. But if Rand is identified with Hannity he will not and should not win a national election.
William says:

February 28, 2013 at 8:13 pm

@WorkingClass,
I agree about Hannity, I don’t want Rand moving towards him, to the extent that Hannity can move, I would hope he comes our way, even though he will always be a shill. In order to change the party, its going to be an imperfect and gradual process – the big name GOP leaders have too much invested in the narrative, they can’t reject it abruptly – they can try to forget about it and move on eventually. Rand seems to be promoting that second option by sometimes playing nice, so that they see his criticism as being constructive and friendly.