Tea Party, meet Senator Rand Paul, RINO (via Newsmax Insider):
Senator Rand Paul has earned a reputation as a libertarian ideologue who enjoys widespread support from Tea Party advocates.
But the Kentucky Republican, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, has been seeking to broaden his appeal by softening or backing away from some earlier stances on foreign and domestic policy.
"While he has maintained his core support for cutting spending and protecting Americans' privacy rights, Paul has shaded, changed, or dropped some of the ideas that he espoused as a Tea Party candidate and in his confrontational early days as a senator," the Washington Post observed on Monday.
The Post reviewed Paul's speeches, op-eds, and pieces of legislation he has authored, and interviewed several Paul advisers, to map out the freshman senator's policy shifts.
In June, when Islamic State militants had taken control of large parts of Iraq, Paul expressed skepticism about possible American airstrikes and U.S. military intervention in general.
But after the beheadings of two American journalists, Paul had what the Post called a "stark change of heart" and came out in support of airstrikes and other actions to destroy the militant group.
In 2011, Paul proposed eliminating all foreign aid, including aid to Israel. But he soon changed his position and instead called for cutting aid to $5 billion a year, providing Israel with its full share of more than $3 billion.
In 2012, Paul called for immediate changes in Medicare, replacing the current system with subsidies to seniors to buy coverage from private insurers. Two years later, he is now working on a different Medicare plan, according to an aide, who said the senator might propose preserving the old system after all.
Paul previously criticized the construction of a fence along the Mexican border, saying it reminded him of the Berlin Wall. More recently he supports building two fences, one behind the other, according to the Post article written by David A. Fahrenthold.
Last year Paul introduced legislation that would declare a fertilized egg a human being whose life is protected by law. But earlier this year he softened his stance, acknowledging that the country is "somewhere in the middle" on the abortion issue and "we're not changing any of the laws until the country is persuaded otherwise."
Paul earlier expressed his opposition to same-sex marriage, but he has stated that the GOP ought to "agree to disagree" on such issues to welcome a broader coalition of voters into the party.
Paul was elected in 2010 with 56% of the vote in the general election, with solid support among tea party advocates. He helped form the Senate Tea Party Caucus, and delivered the Tea Party response to President Obama's State of the Union speech in February 2013.
His retreat from his earlier positions could negatively impact Paul if he runs for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016, Fahrenthold points out.
Paul's "transformation carries enormous risk," he said. "As Rand Paul seeks to broaden his appeal, he may damage his image as an authentic non-politician who is unafraid to stand up for his beliefs."
In an interview with the Federalist published on Wednesday, Paul claimed the Post article was a "hit piece" and "full of inaccuracies." Fahrenthold responded that Paul's office had refused to elaborate on the inaccuracies of the reporting. [emphasis added]
A few observations, in no particular order:
***Because Senator Paul is a libertarian more than a conservative, a lot of that "softening" is predominantly a simple recognition of political reality and common sense. He was wrong to question destroying the Islamic State, and it took the beheadings of James Foley and Steve Sotloff to bring him to his senses. He was wrong to want to cut off aid to Israel, but right to cut it off for every other national recipient, and he has now recognized that fact. Whether he also realizes that foreign aid is a drop in the bucket of federal spending and opposition to which is largely nonsensical symbolism is anybody's guess. He was right about total Medicare privatization, but since learned that such massive change can only happen incrementally. He was wrong on not building a border fence and has corrected that grievous error.
On the other hand, his collapse on the right to life and support of biblical marriage is a significant disappointment that reflects his listening to GOP political consultants regarding the abandonment of social/moral issues.
***Why the "softening"? Isn't it obvious? Senator Paul has deluded himself into taking it for granted that he's presidential timbre. Accordingly, he is following the Nixon template of "moving to the political center" well in advance of 2016.
***Is David Fahrenthold correct that Senator Paul is dooming a presidential candidacy by flipping the bird to Tea Partiers more than he is helping it by "broadening his appeal"? I'm probably not the person to be asked that question, because I consider the notion of Rand Paul actually winning the presidency to be patently absurd - he (1) does not possess sufficient political experience and (2) it's the wrong kind, as the U.S. Senate is not the career path to the White House and hasn't been for over a century. But based upon what got him his Senate seat four years ago, and what I know of the Tea Party - i.e. if they haven't excommunicated him already, they inevitably will, with tar and feathering close behind - I would say this is a foolish move on his part, as moderate and left-leaning independents will be far more difficult to convince of the "New Rand Paul" than Tea Partiers will be to forgive his retrenchment from ideological purity.
***How will Tea Partiers react to Senator Paul's "betrayal"? If even so staunch and stalwart a TPer as Rand Paul can join the "cockroaches," is their shining, pristine, idealistic view of the Founders' America (that has never actually ever existed, although it's been a helluva lot closer to that vision in the past than it is now) truly unattainable? I figure TPers will either (1) quit in despair and disgust or, more likely, (2) re-double their "Fight! Fight! Fight!" efforts, search for fresh "champions," become even more purity-obsessed, and consequently less politically viable and relevant.
I would say, "I told you so!", but I frankly don't have the heart to do so at this point. That, and I was never a huge Rand Paul fan in the first place.
Ted Cruz, on the other hand....man, if only he had waited a couple of years and run to succeed Rick Perry. He'd have been the total package. Or at least a great running mate for Scott Walker.
The latter of which he still can be. Hmmmm.....
No comments:
Post a Comment