Friday, May 17, 2013

The Rand Paul Enigma

I'm not sure what to think of Rand Paul. He seems a principled defender of liberty one moment, then a waffler the next. Most will agree he's looking at a presidential run in the near future. Should libertarians support him?

I don't know. Especially after he threw principle to the wind and endorsed Mitt Romney for president last time around. If he's willing to do something like that, what might he do next in the name of pragmatism?

I'm also not sure about him saying one thing to one audience and slightly different thing to the next, although I understand that can be consistent with winning hearts and minds. You don't win over people by giving a message they don't want to hear. You try finding common ground and then move them toward your side.

Nick Gillespie has a nice piece at the The Daily Beast  about Rand that really hits the nail on the head. He points out that Rand's apparent inconsistency could come back to haunt him: "It’s far more likely that if Paul continues to send significantly different messages to different audiences, he will end up alienating all his possible supporters." And It would be ironic indeed "... if Rand Paul turns out to be one of the few people left in America not fully comfortable with his own message.".

It will be interesting to see if his message ends up being one many, including libertarians, will support. I don't think I'll have to worry about having to decide whether vote for him. I wrote elsewhere we could do worse than have Rand Paul for President, but he'll more than likely be given the same treatment by the Republicans as Ron Paul and Gary Johnson did. I can't imagine him winning the nomination.


At 8:45 PM, Blogger Rose said...

I like him - and he has managed to do something no one else has - he bridged the vast divide between the camps. Without saying a nasty word, just by calling for sanity on the drone issue. I would not count him out.

There's going to be quite a field - Ted Cruz is probably the powerhouse. Marco Rubio is no slouch.

But all of them have a REAL job to do, and that's what they better focus on. In reality it's more important than running.

At 11:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Henchman Of Justice" says,

Good words Rose, but what has got people is that Mitt Romney can't be trusted because he has lied and represents what more and more people despise - the Two Party System. You know this as a staunch replublican supporter and member of a local political group. Fact is that people such as yourself who are connected to insiders understand that your world is "fracked-up" when those you put into office are no longer of value because everything you support in the Two Party System is the juxtapose to everything that is defiantly wrong with what is being perceived more as tyrannical behaviors by those who represent again and again, election after election, the Two Party System.

Ron Paul lost votes too because of his waffling, especially with abortion issues and not running as a non-Two Party member.When the last election of the two party system shills represented the nation's voters with two untrustworthy hipocrit liars, a principled person would not "endorse" such waffling, flip-floppish double standard actions "just because of being interested for a more powerful position in society" no matter what the reasons are. Today, people have a funny way about "altering and morphing" their principles to mix and match with politics.

O any given day,


At 11:48 AM, Anonymous skippy said...

I like what I’ve seen and heard from Rand Paul. He’s a standup guy who speaks his conscience freely and honestly in a bipartisan way. The family had a sponsoring lunch with the President at the house last month and I’m told Governor Christie will be asked next, if he decides to come. I’ll ask about Mr. Paul. Thanks, Fred.


Post a Comment

<< Home