Yes, Rand Paul Did Win the Debate

As a followup to my post, An Examination of How Rand Paul Did in the Debate, Michael Edelstein emails:

Bob,

Your critique of Rand seems right on target. However you did not respond to the issue I raised: how did Rand do compared to the other Republicans in the debate, (not compared to libertarian principles)?

Here’s my evaluation: he did noticeable better than all the others on drug policy, foreign policy, and explaining the intent of the Bill of Rights, although against a libertarian standard he failed.

Warm regards, 

Michael

Yes, Michael, I believe you have a point,

In terms of lack of clarity and deception as to when a candidate would employ government coercion, Rand surely won.

He, for example, did not mention when discussing his tax plan that it includes a horrific value added tax.

When it came to war, he talked in remarkable generalities compared to the rest of the candidates:

When going to war in the future we should use "wisdom on when we should intervene"

That war "was a last resort."

That he would "fight reluctantly"

And that he would "fight all out," when he did fight.

What the hell does any of this mean?

The minute he got down to generalities he was exposed as a wannabe ruler of the Empire. We should give "no free pass to Russia or China," he said.

As far as the drug discussion during the debate, I note that he switched the direction of the debate from a discussion of whether marijuana should be legalized to a debate on medical marijuna legalization.

So yeah, as far as the guy who walked the most crooked line. He won.

I have no doubt he deserves the Keyser Soze award:

-RW