This would seem to point to Paul’s fidelity to a strong national defense that starts at home rather than protecting the U.S. with ill-considered band-aids as an afterthought, which seems to be our present policy.
Libertarians aren’t pleased but I never felt like Paul was really a libertarian anyway. I think an ideologically pure libertarian would dismantle the military entirely awaiting only a declaration only of war only from Congress to even mobilize. That’s NOT Paul OR his voting record.
His oft-stated goal of reducing the role of government has always, as far as I can tell, referred ONLY to the federal government. True libertarianism, as I understand it, would strip away power at all levels of government. The 10th amendment, however, restores power to the level closest to we-the-people, which is what Paul seems to be about.
Under a Paul presidency, oily, drug-saturated maggots can still be sent out to the back forty for stun gun practice by your local magistrate, a pleasant notion I don’t think the radical civil liberty types have considered in supporting Paul. Are these pro-marijuana types mainly useful idiots for those of us who think of ourselves as conservative? Maybe.
I don’t like it when they and the David Duke miscreants are on the same side of anything with me—sharing the air we breathe, for example; but I feel that way about Sean Hannity and Ted Kennedy, too.
So Paul has alloyed into his bloc some bona fides that suggest he is serious about protecting America at the very fount of freedom? I say merge him with Duncan Hunter and watch the fur fly.
We might not win but it will be the most fun you can have with the MSM and RINO’s and genuine reform of the GOP can be the happy outcome.