It fits. I always see Rand as someone who is less interested in actually “bucking the establishment” as opposed to working “libertarianism INTO the establishment.” The McConnell endorsement, the waffling amnesty stance, and several other things have tended to point this way. His overall track-record since being in office has been pretty solid. But I remain wary of him. This sort of accomodation towards the establishment, coupled with my concern he’s holding back on some more extreme, big-L libertarian views, just keeps me from ever wanting to jump on his bandwagon. Particularly his wishy-washiness on amnesty (and indeed, libertarians used to be very vocal on being pro open-borders).
Anyway, the Palin-Cruz brand of “tea party” conservatism is more my avenue.
Rand lost me with the comment about what a tragedy it would have been had Obama not been our leader. I haven’t heard anyone except the liberals say such an obscene thing.
The entire hearing was disgusting. He was talking about blacks being disproportionately arrested for drugs and how unfair it was that so many of the blacks can not vote because they are felons. He was citing the ACLU. You would have thought you were listening to Jackson or Sharpton.
I don’t understand this guy.
If Rand plays ball for McConnell he will get some nice committee gigs that hook him up to the big money taps on Wall Street and K Street.