Rand Paul, in my opinion, is one that holds the same Rothbard libertarian views as his father. The difference being is that Rand was able to watch his father fight the election battle and see what a liability these positions are. He has been able to identify the ‘sticky’ spots of his ideology and ‘moderated’ them in order to sound better.
This is what is scary about Rand. Conservatives seem to be eating it up despite how flip floppish his views are. What I see with Rand Paul isn’t a reasonable conservative, I see a fish out of water saying whatever he can to remain relevant. Often flip flopping in order to throw a bone to whoever he thinks will support him.
Maybe a first term Rand as President would be moderate, but the second term would be downright scary.
Rand Paul has essentially been an unknown in the political world for most of his career. Unless you were following the Ron Paul movement you probably never had the chance to even hear his name, other than his run in with the TSA at the airport. More recently he has become popular with his filibuster on drones killing Americans on American soil. I’ve yet to figure out exactly WHAT drones have to do with it. If the problem is killing Americans without due process, does it matter if it’s a drone, or a black helicopter full of the SWAT team?
Drones seems to be his hot button issue.
No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court
But why a drone Rand? In extreme cases it is perfectly acceptable and RATIONAL to kill someone before they ever go to a courtroom. If someone is shooting up a shopping mall and at police officers that enter it, do you expect police officers to say to said innocent until proven guilty shooter, “Dear Sir, if you could come over to us and let us arrest you that would be swell.” This is insane.
Please see Politifact’s truth-o-meter on this.
What happens next, Rand flips. When talking about drones he stated, “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him,” on Fox Business Network.
Paul lifted words, verbatim, off the Wikipedia page for Gattaca regarding ‘liberal eugenics’.
After this allegation came to light, people looked into other speeches to see if this was a trend. More was found.
When it comes to plagiarizing speeches, there are only two reasons to do it; you either don’t have ideas of your own to express or you don’t know how to express the ideas of who you’re pretending to be. Paul has brushed off these accusations as attacks by people who hate him (or are spreading hate). Even though using words that you agree with in a speech isn’t bad, it’s the act of using other people’s words without crediting them and at the same time making listeners think these are your own unique thoughts.
Rand’s most serious flip flopping occurs on the world stage with war/intervention. I believe the problem with this is his staunch libertarian isolationism (I refuse to use the libertarian rhetoric word ‘non-intervention’, which you can read about here) and his desire to appeal to more sensible positions.
Creating this page is something that takes time. Often other people have written great articles with sources to various subjects that help me develop this page better.