Monday, March 11, 2013

Rand Paul: Kruger or Ayn?

Not that it's relevant, of course.  I just wanted to use that title before anybody else did.  I'm not sure what I think of Rand Paul.  Clearly, he says a lot of good things, and then he spoils it all by pledging to continue to let Israel run our foreign policy in the Middle East.  No, not explicitly, but that's the message.  Like his father, he's hard to pin down on immigration.  That's not really knocking him, because all the Presidential hopefuls in both parties other than Paul are firmly on the side of open borders and amnesty, despite what they might say.

For what it's worth, here's my prediction:  There will be a big swell of support for Rand Paul in 2016, but he's end up like the Bill Bradleys and Rick Santorums of history, and instead they'll nominate a 'sensible' candidate, i. e., another Goddam Bush.  When everybody is totally sick of Democrats, the argument will be that Bushes do win elections, and the safest thing to do will be to nominate Jeb, and that's what they'll do.  And the Democrats will be on a roll of nominating exotic minorities/women/weirdoes and will go with Villaraigosa or something like that, and we'll get another Bush.  I just know it.  And his policies will be just like Obama's/W's/Bill Clinton's, only just a little bit worse. But the Republicans will be oh so happy and smug that they won, and we'll get more perpetual war overseas and massive crime and taxes and immigration at home.

Anyhow, Jim Goad thinks pretty much the same way I do about Rand, and he says:

Where Does Rand Stand?

Starting shortly before noon last Wednesday, the curly-haired and elfin-faced Kentucky Senator Rand Paul spent thirteen hours filibusterin’ Barack Obama and Eric Holder’s balls about whether the federal government claimed the right to kill American citizens on US soil without trial. His performance earned both praise and scorn from both left and right, which suggests that the country’s prefab and punchably tiresome blue/red divisions may be undergoing a tectonic realignment.

Or maybe not. Despite the tremendous publicity his marathon speech generated, Paul did not appear on the usual Sunday-morning round of political TV programs, which chose instead to interview the puffy-cheeked and criminally unexceptional Jeb Bush, who’s sort of the Carl Wilson of the Bush family dynasty.

Still, the tremendous reaction to Paul’s speech suggests that while he may not be as principled as his father Ron, he might be a far shrewder politician. The fact that a Republican can deliver a 13-hour speech that draws praise from Bill Maher and Jon Stewart while angering John McCain and Lindsey Graham hints that Paul may have some sort of strange and unprecedented cross-platform appeal.

The filibuster was technically aimed to delay the nomination of new CIA Chief William Brennan, but it focused specifically on a leaked Department of Justice white paper that raised the question of “imminence” and whether the feds had the right to use drones to kill American citizens within US borders if they felt someone posed an imminent threat to national security. Paul said that Barack Obama had made comments suggesting such a right existed. Paul said he’d also hectored Attorney General Eric Holder and his egregiously obnoxious mustache whether such a right existed but that Holder’s responses were evasive. (Keep reading HERE.)


  1. You are probably right about how things may go next election. They seem to be positioning Jeb Bush for the role. After all the years of being told I live in a democracy, from kindergarten on up, I no longer believe it and haven't for quite awhile now. The game is fixed. The two parties collude with each other and it's understood the Dems will hand it over to the Repubs next time so there'll be a lot of razzle-dazzle, posturing, smoke and mirrors to confuse the public. No changes of significance will be made, certainly nothing the average taxpayer would want.

  2. Bush III: coming soon to a theater near you.