Rich Lowry tells us that Rand Paul let on that his foreign-policy views aren’t much different than his father’s. Rich writes:
He clearly thinks we have no business being in Afghanistan anymore, although he’s very reluctant to come out and say it. At one point he even seemed to suggest he doesn’t want to give his personal view of the war out of respect for the Constitution (it’s not the role of Congress to micro-manage wars.
(He does know that Congress funds wars, right?)
Whoa. We just went through a flap with Michael Steele over his statements on Afghanistan. Granted, Steele added to his woes by making the obnoxious and inaccurate comment that it was Obama’s war. But the substance of Steele’s comments were rejected by every Republican official — except Rep. Ron Paul — and by the vast majority of conservative pundits. In a chorus, they declared that this war is essential to America’s security and that support for it is a basic tenet of the GOP. So what, then, is the rationale for those conservatives to support Paul for the Senate?
In a real sense, this is more troubling than his civil rights lunacy. The 1964 Civil Rights Act isn’t coming up for a vote anytime soon, but support for the war sure will. If he’s fundamentally opposed to a critical aspect of the war on Islamic terror — and doesn’t have the courage to say so — it’s hard to fathom why voters who want a robust effort to defeat Islamic terrorists shouldn’t be very, very concerned. Sometimes politics triumphs over policy; but on issues of war and peace, shouldn’t good policy trump partisan loyalty?