Thursday, March 26, 2015

BRUTAL: Mainstream Goes on Tear Against Flip-Flopping Rand Paul

Rand Paul's spectacular flip-flop from calling for a cut in defense spending to an increase  has mainstream noting the incredible reversal.

Here are the headlines:

Salon: Rand Paul’s spectacular crash: How a man of principle turned into a generic politician

Washington Post: Rand Paul now wants more defense spending. Welcome back to the old GOP.

Huffington Post: Rand Paul Channels His Inner Tom Cotton, Calls For Defense Spending Hike

Inside the stories:

Paul dropped any pretense of being a new brand of Republican, one dedicated to reforming the bloated defense establishment, as he presented himself early on. It puts him more in line with some of the more hawkish members of his party, like freshman Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who suggested spending upwards of $900 billion on defense annually.

Paul's transformation into a foreign policy hawk has been remarkable. In recent months, the senator signed on to a controversial letter to the leaders of Iran. He endorsed carving out a new state in the Middle East for afflicted Kurds in Iraq and Syria. And he gradually came around to expanded military operations against Islamic State terrorists, even endorsing limited boots on the ground.

To top it off, next month Paul is expected to campaign for president in front of an aircraft carrier, in yet another overt bid to toughen up his image ahead of the presidential primary.

 Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) -- he of the "non-interventionist" foreign policy -- wants to increase defense spending. This comes after he has, in the past, called for a significant reduction thereof...Call it a pragmatism or call it a flip-flop, the practical and political effect is the same. Rather than continue to try to appeal to a more limited cross-section of the party, Paul seems to be trying to split the difference and prove that he's no dove. Whenever someone accuses him of being soft on defense, you can rest assured he'll cite the above.
And what could better signify the GOP reverting to its more-hawkish footing like a member of the Paul family calling for an increase in defense spending?

 The true “compromise” that’s happening here is on Rand Paul’s much-vaunted libertarian principles, which he’s shown an eager willingness to shed as he moves closer and closer to announcing his presidential candidacy. He debuted on the national scene as a Republican who would stand on principle to buck the Republican establishment, and since then he’s steadily diluted his own positions to bring them into closer alignment with the mainstream of the party. The Rand Paul who once scoffed at the Republican “hawks” and “interventionists” has since joined their ranks in calling for a sustained military campaign to “destroy” the Islamic State. He used to support cutting aid to Israel, but now denies ever having espoused that position.


(ht Jay Stephenson)


  1. Robert,
    You're not being intellectually honest. You're clearly not giving your readers the whole story.

    Rand's defense budget proposal required spending cuts in areas like foreign aid to pay for ANY increase in budget spending. All the other senators and potential candidates INCLUDING CRUZ voted to increase defense spending MORE THAN PAUL and WITHOUT OTHER SPENDING CUTS.

    1. So what? I don't want any more spending on expanding the empire. I have better idea. Reduce spending EVERYWHERE.

  2. This is speculative but true I think:

    Getting Rand to compromise was by design. It was to sabotage the political liberty movement. It worked too. The establishment saw a threat from the Ron Paul liberty movement and they dealt with it.