Last week I discussed the potential impact of Senator Rand Paul’s growing influence on the Republican Party. That prompted an exchange with the senator that we subsequently published. The senator has now written again to correct the record on one point. We’re happy to let him do so.
Last week, I responded to Mr. Tobin’s article, and I am grateful to COMMENTARY for allowing this exchange on their pages. I think it is important people realize disagreements on some particular policy points, like foreign aid, is not a disagreement on our relationship with our ally Israel. In fact, it hurts the pro-Israel cause to state otherwise.
During his response to my letter, Mr. Tobin brings up one glaring and obvious error that I simply must correct. I did not “skip” the address to Congress by Prime Minister Netanyahu. I was trapped on the Senate floor by Harry Reid. You see, all week I had been leading a filibuster in defense of the Fourth Amendment and against certain onerous provisions of the Patriot Act. At that moment, I was attempting to force a vote on my amendment to protect gun owners, as provisions of the Patriot Act have harsh Second Amendment problems that Republican supporters try to hide.
On the day of the speech, I was forced to be at my desk on the Senate floor all day, or lose my filibuster and chance of forcing these votes. I literally was on the floor all day, for 8 hours straight. I was only able to use the bathroom through the help of another senator who guarded the floor while I left for 5 minutes.
Senator Rand Paul, Washington, D.C.
I think it speaks volumes that Paul is taking to the pages of this blog a full 4 years before the election. He is obviously trying to nail down any potential problem spots in the GOP base very early on. Senator Paul, my synagogue is 75% Republican and you're welcome to come speak anytime!
What synagogue is that? I want to join.
OK. If so, he gets a pass,at least from me, but why did he allow at least one network to show him avoiding the speech (seemingly in his private office – not so?) and describe it as pointedly missing the speech to make a point. I know he can't be responsible for what a network does, but still. n nIt may have been Fox. n nLast big issue for Republican Jews, I think: does he or does he not repudiate his fathers statements that placed Israel at fault for conflict with the Arab world. n n n nYour Dad's base was/is also creepy to the nth degree and has more than a whiff of antisemitism about it. What can you do about that? n nMany Jews want to like you, Rand. Help them by clarifying these issues.
Rand's father is anti-Israel, but does the son have to publicly repudiate his own father? I can live with him merely indirectly doing so.
Rand Paul, a non-board certified ophthalmologist in private practice, went from nowhere politically straight to the US Senate two years ago largely on the strenght of his father's name. (Who believes he would have accomplished it in the fashion he did if his name were Paul Rand rather than Rand Paul and had the very public backing of Ron Paul.) If asked to name a Libertarian in Congress, one's first response would be to name the father, the second to name the son. It's more than reasonable to impute the ideas of the father to the son except as the son makes it clear that he differs from the father on sensitive matters, that question of antisemitism in the father's case. "Indirection" may not be enough to accomplish the purpose.
If you are implying that Rand Paul is not smart, or that he/his father are anti-semites, I think that is snarky.
Most Jews did not even like Reagan. Reagan only got 40% of Jewish vote. n nSo why should Rand Paul pander to the jews. n nPaul should appeal to White Christians, White working class whose young children are being slaughtered in useless wars for the pleasure of Israel.
Ahem.
I do not trust him.
Who do you trust? Could you provide a few names in both the GOP and Democratic Party of those you feel comfortable with?
Suppose Adam supplies no names or says he trust no one, how would that make the case that Rand Paul is trustworthy?
Rand Paul: "provisions of the Patriot Act have harsh Second Amendment problems that Republican supporters try to hide." Please explain to me why, WHY, does he need to put down other Republicans to bolster himself. He could have just said, 'provisions of the Patriot Act have harsh Second Amendment problems,' but he didn't.