Friday, November 20, 2009

Is Rand Paul a NeoCon?

That recent strong Rand Paul support for Sarah Palin, who has neocon tendencies, may not have been that much of a stretch.

Rand Paul issued this pretty much neocon  press release, Thursday:
Leading United States Senate candidate Rand Paul today criticized the Obama administration’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center and try terrorism suspects in United States Civil Courts.

“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”

Dr. Paul believes in strong national defense and thinks military spending should be our country’s top budget priority. He has also called for a Constitutional declaration of war with Afghanistan


  1. Based on a few interviews I heard at the beginning of his run, I always thought Rand would be a mere shadow in comparison to his dad.

    He struck me as a politician in the mold of the mid-1990's republicans, save for having a more principled, non-hypocritical approach. A few days ago, I heard he had asked Sarah Palin to campaign for him, at that point, I had decided he was almost worthless. This post and linked press release has convinced me he is worthless.

    Sadly, I think Palin and Rand Paul, are the future of the republicans-- a kind of more principled, neo-con light. I'm not interested in supporting this. No one I know is interested.

    I have the same reservations for Peter Schiff. I am extremely skeptical of his senate run. I have no doubt that he believed everything he said before the current economic crisis, but I worry he might be compromised if he gets elected. In current interviews, I get the feeling he's holding back what he wants to say. Lately, I've also heard him waffle on whether or not the Fed should even exist.

    I am very pessimistic on all of this.

  2. If we are attacking a country, it should be only under the declaration of war on by the congress. Rand Paul is consistent as far as i can see. He didn't say that he was FOR the war.

  3. Ron Paul had the opportunity to vote against going to war but Rand Paul is faced with a situation where we are already in a war situation. Rand knows that any legitimate war needs to have a congressional declaration of war with definable goals. He's far too conservative to get any support from the liberal press but he also knows he'll be crusified by the conservative press if he's an libertarian on the war issues as his father. Where he and his father are in strong agreement are issues of governmental and fiscal responsibility. Boarder defence and almost every other issue.