Fresh from a generally favorable extensive profile in The New Republic, Rand Paul's presidential aspirations to run for president in 2016 are not in doubt. In fact, the gist of that profile was showing him as a much more formidable candidate for the Republican nomination than his father.
The article even called him a "threat" to both parties, especially his appeal to younger voters, a main strength of recent Democratic victories, as well as a group Republicans need to snare if they are to win.
Paul is obviously tempering his libertarian purism in order to position himself as a possible Republican nominee -- something his father never did, retaining his libertarian principles, even when it led to his becoming the butt of jokes.
Rand Paul has been less isolationist, when it comes to foreign policy; less Ayn Randian, when it comes to economics; and less anti-government, when it comes to domestic programs, than his father.
It's the foreign policy differences that set him off most clearly with his mainstream Republican colleagues, who characteristically want Obama to intervene more with military strikes. Even now, when Obama surprised many with the airstrikes against the ISIS insurgents sweeping through Iraq, John McCain is calling for him to extend these strikes into Syria as well. There's never enough bombing to suit McCain, it seems.
Which brings us to the point of talking about Rand Paul today. He so far has remained silent on this latest foreign policy hot issue. The genocidal and humanitarian nature of this crisis gives it wider support, even among those who lean toward non-intervention.
So it's a tricky issue for Paul. If he opposes it, it makes him look uncaring; if he supports it, then it makes his break with the libertarian non-intervention policy concrete and "big news" of a break, which Paul's gradual strategy is not yet ready for.
Will be interesting to watch.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment