Your opinions about Rand Paul, please

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.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Mike Devx

    I am not my father’s son politically.  Our politics were far apart.  (In many other ways I wish I was more like he was; he was a great guy and was cherished by so many people, through decades.)
     
    I see no reason to put Rand Paul into a Ron Paul cage.  He’s his own man.
     

  • SADIE

    I can’t offer an opinion, but can recommend the link below, which is easy to navigate with a pulldown menu on topic. 
    http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/117285

  • jhstuart

    He has my attention.

  • jj

    I wouldn’t worry about it.  Whatever he believes, his last name guarantees he won’t be getting anywhere near the white house.  He’s as formidable as he’ll ever be right now.

  • Birthday unit

    I agree with jj that Sen. Paul isn’t going anywhere solely because of his name.
     
    People I know, people who are not reflexive leftoids, still diss Rand because he’s a Paul.  They say things like “oh he’s the one with hair.”  These are otherwise decent conservative style people.  Where was the koolaid they drank and how did I miss it?  I think Rand is solid.  Not saying he won’t go off the rails next week … are the so-called press still asking rape questions?
     

  • Michael Adams

    Yes, he has too much in common with his father.  The more I see of Libertarianism, the more I see a combination of Constitutionalism and more solutions to Rousseau’s Problem of the Bourgeoisie. We are not a tributary empire. We are a commercial one.  Our armed services protect trade.  We hear constant complaints that we “prop up” tyrannical governments, and that we intervene to often in the internal affairs of other nations.  This seeming inconsistency results from the fact that we protect trade, and that we trade with nearly anyone. Neither Paul seems to understand that this is the basis of our foreign policy, and has been since 1898, at least.

  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

     
    I think Rand gave up too much on drones…..can anyone explain how a drone strike would have helped in the shootout with the Tsarnaevs? 
     
    As I understand it, they’re not currently able to single out one person in a crowd and take him down.  A strike that killed Tamerlan would have simultaneously taken out one or more of the cops, too….or am I just ignorant of the modern drones?
     
    Anyhow, given that at the present time a drone strike is relatively non-specific, how could Rand (or anyone else) possibly endorse their use in domestic criminal situations?
     
    As for his future in politics, I doubt that most Americans are on board with a lot of his libertarian positions. I think that’s more likely going to scuttle his chances than the relationship to Ron.