A true Renaissance man! ;)
I admire Paul for sticking to his guns the way he does in the House — if more Republicans were like “Dr. No” when it comes to Constitutionality we wouldn’t be faced with nearly as many problems as we are on this very day... [When I see a tally with Dr. Paul as the only (or one of a few) “no” vote(s) it’s the first indicator to me at least that back-room deals have happened to secure others’ votes, and that there is probably something very questionable Constitutionally with the bill in question].
Where I personally have a problem with Dr. Paul it comes from two things:
1. I think his intelligence is such that he doesn’t realize when he has “skipped some steps” in explanations and others can’t follow how he’s gotten from here to there. The fact that the majority of our populace is woefully uneducated in regards to the Law, History, the Constitution and the Government itself does NOT help in this. The meaning seems to get “lost in translation” particularly in live interviews — his prepared statements and papers are flawless when it comes down to getting to the heart of MANY (mostly economic) matters, when it comes to the daily workings of DC, and how that effects our Constitutional rights.
2. The thing that REALLY got to me during this last election cycle was Paul’s insistence on using the “left’s” playbook in regards to the anti-War sentiments. Instead of taking the time to explain why the course of action was wrong in his LEGAL opinion when it came to Iraq and Afghanistan (letters of marque, etc...), he ALLOWED the message to turn into one of anti-American propaganda. The majority of those young folks that supported him in the last election I do not believe really understood/understand a whole lot, but recognized the anti-war rhetoric as something they could relate to while simultaneously realizing that the Dems weren’t going to solve the problems, either. I truly think Paul failed with a major opportunity to educate a great many young people who were attracted by his campaign — instead of teaching them it seems as if he left them to their own devices when it came to actually understanding some of his objections, and when they didn’t understand his they replaced it with their own (which usually stemmed from their liberal professors and the media).
When Dr. Paul let his “handlers” take page after page out of the liberals’ blame America first playbook that’s when he lost me (it was even earlier when the LP lost me over this issue...). I am very much against being an aggressor, but any libertarian worth their salt is VERY much FOR DEFENSE - especially a strong NATIONAL defense!
Maybe I’m missing something important here, but it really does seem that over the last few years when it comes to this particular issue there is a disconnect - and a rather serious one at that.
Actually, I thought that your post was excellent. I also think that Ron Paul let his (arguably) Constitutionally-based anti-war stance be co-opted -- to an "at least troubling" extent -- by the anti-military, Anti-American Left. That may have been more of an oversight than an intentional indulgence, but it was a mistake which turned off a lot of Conservatives and not a few libertarians.
Contrast that with the way that Rand Paul preaches the message, declaring that he believes that National Defense should be the single largest component of the Federal Budget. The largest percentage of a much smaller Federal Budget, true; but at least he's emphasizing the priority that National Defense should enjoy within the very few things that the Pauls believe that the Federal Government is supposed to do. Rand is stronger on his advocacy of this position, and presents his argument better, than Ron has ever done. (Unfortunately).