I was listening to a few seconds of Rand Paul on Sean Hannity’s radio show today. I haven’t been following his recent drone kerfuffle very closely, but his explanation of his drone statement the other day sounded reasonable. According to Rand, he’s never said that drones cannot be used to stop a violent crime or dangerous situation as it’s happening. To him, the drones can appropriately be used as just another weapon in the policeman’s arsenal when dealing with an imminent crisis — as, for example, the shoot-out with the Tsarnaevs. He still believes that drones should not be used to spy on American soil, nor should they be used for exterminating people who are not imminent threats.
Often (not always, but often), I find that Paul makes sense. When I mentioned this to a very politically knowledgeable friend of mine, he said “Don’t be fooled. He’s still is father’s son.”
In other word, rather than Rand being the reasonable evolution of his father, eschewing the anti-Israel/antisemitism/Trutherism/etc. that characterizes Ron and having a better understanding generally of the real world, Rand is a Trojan Horse. His beliefs are identical to his father’s, says my friend, only they’re being carefully hidden as he lays the groundwork for the White House. Certainly, Rand has shown that he has a real flair for the theatrics necessary to make a noise in modern politics. He’s also articulate, which is a refreshing change after the verbal stumbles that seemed to characterize both McCain and Romney, neither of whom was a good speaker, whether on TelePrompter or off.
If Rand Paul can allay the concerns of mainstream Republicans, the Tea Party, and his father’s fans, he will be a formidable political presence in a few years. That’s why it’s very important to know what he stands for: is a more moderate version of his Dad, or is he just hiding his true colors because it suits his purposes to do so?
Do you have any knowledge about Rand Paul or any opinions about his politics? I’d be very interested in hearing what you have to say.