4 votes

Senator Rand Paul - plus and minus columns over the last year


Suggestions for items of significance to be placed in the plus, minus or other columns greatly appreciated.
I will update my blog with the best ones.


Drone filibuster.
Asked Clinton about CIA/State Dept arms smuggling to Syrian Islamic Extremists in January.
Has spoken up against gun control - but that's just a general GOP supporters line and didn't make any difference.


(In rough reverse chronological order.)

Endorsed Mitch McConnell with no pressure to do so.

Did not ask about the CIA/State Dept arms smuggling to Syrian Islamic Extremist at the Benghazi hearings in May. Toed the Neocon line.
Comments, questions and interviews were just designed to gain GOP popularity and support, not to do any good or steer the debate towards the multitude of evidence of CIA/State Dept support of Islamic Extremists.

Even John McCain made a statement against Obama because of his outright abuses of the powers granted in the AUMF.
Haven't heard anything from Rand.

"But even Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who generally agrees with Graham in pursuing a vigorous war on terror, said the AUMF has been stretched past the breaking point.
"This authority ... has grown way out of proportion and is no longer applicable to the conditions that prevailed, that motivated the United States Congress to pass the authorization for the use of military force that we did in 2001," McCain said."

How about saying something against the 74 wars and conflicts that America is now involved in?

Very poor comments on his visit to Israel.
He should of been less pro Israel and more supportive of Palestinian attempts at international recognition. Did not make a comment against the further illegal Israeli West Bank and Jerusalem building.
Attended AIPAC (at least for the last 2 years).

Very poor speech at CPAC 2013.
Did not mention cutting any of the over $1.3tn of annual Corporate Welfare.
Did not mention cutting any of the $1,219bn military spending or any of the current massive Pentagon waste.
Did not mention stopping the continuing $1tn a year bailout of the big banks by the government and the Federal Reserve.
Did not mention stopping the $1tn a year of Federal Reserve QE printing.
He did advocate raising the income tax thresh hold to $50,000, i.e. cutting taxes on the middle class and lower paid rather than the rich, contrary to Ryan's so called budget.
He did say the GOP needed to become more Libertarian - but it was very general with no specific mentions of the multitude of abuses to the Bill of Rights.

Endorsed Romney DURING the Texas State Convention.
He could easily have waited until after all the State Conventions were finished and final delegate totals were set.
He could of waited until after Tampa - his speech at Tampa just contained a load of waffle.
Did not make any statements in support of Ron Paul during Tampa. Ben Ginsberg actually asked him to "sort your guys out" referring to Ron Paul delegates and supporters who were causing a nuisance.
Did not make any statements against the Stalinist rule changes imposed during Tampa. Lots of other people made highly critical public statements, even people like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin - but not Rand.
Made the endorsement of Romney on Hannity of all places - why didn't he at least do it somewhere a bit more supportive like Cavuto?

Previous statements supporting Iranian sanctions.
Recent comments about Iran have been non existent or poor.
Movement towards the Neocon line.

There is plenty of other material that Rand could speak up about, against the increasing heavy handed intervention of the Federal government.
But I haven't heard anything.

The change in the wording of procedure to allow the military to operate on the streets of the US, without any consent from the civil authorities (usually the Governor).

Hasn't said anything against the introduction of biometric ID's in the Immigration bill.

Indeed I haven't heard him say anything recently against any of this long list of civil rights abuses by Obama.

How about going after Holder for his non prosecution of the bankers?
Elizabeth Warren is harder on the bankers than Rand. He could of supported her actions and questions.
Warren to Federal regulators "when was the last time you jailed a senior banker".

How about going after Obama and Holder for their utter failure in upholding the Rule of Law?

He could even of had a go at the Monsanto Protection Act - but he didn't.

He has made statements in support of Hemp production, but in the scheme of things this is not major.
A statement against the futile "war on drugs" would be much better.

All we have heard lately is waffle that is generally supportive of the Neocon line, plays to the GOP crowd, or makes no difference.
(Except for the couple of positives mentioned at the top of this article.)

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Another plus: He took the constitutionally correct position on

Mandatory GMO labeling

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

Since you seem to be so clear on exactly what to say and do...

maybe instead of just sitting around critiquing and complaining about everything thing Rand Paul says and does, perhaps you should get off your tail and run yourself! You already have all the answers yourself it seems, so put your good name and reputation out there and run for office yourself instead if you don't like what he;s doing! I mean, regardless of whether I agree with Rand or not on every issues is beside the point.

"Liberty tastes sweetest to those who fight for it, and most bitter to those who work to deny it!"


Rand OPaul assures Evangelicals that he doesn't want to end the

drug war

In preparation for a 2016 presidential run, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is courting evangelical leaders. And we all know what that means! It's time to throw those hedonistic, libertine, drug-obsessed libertarians under the bus. The Washington Post reports on how that's going:

At a lunch Friday with about a dozen evangelical pastors in a Cedar Rapids hotel, the younger Paul assured the group that he disagrees with libertarians who support legalizing drugs. When one pastor inquired about ideological ties between Paul and his father, the senator asked that he be judged as his own man.

Paul said he believes in freedom and wants a “virtuous society” where people practice “self-restraint.” Yet he believes in laws and limits as well. Instead of advocating for legalized drugs, for example, he pushes for reduced penalties for many drug offenses.

“I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot,” [Rand] said. “I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican. I’m a constitutional conservative.”

“He made it very clear that he does not support legalization of drugs like marijuana and that he supports traditional marriage,” [said Brad Sherman of the Solid Rock Christian Church in Coralville, Iowa].

Just to hammer home what's been said already: Paul isn't a libertarian on drugs. He wants to keep everything illegal, but institute gentler penalties. That's not remotely libertarian. (Is it politically practical? Sure. So are farm subsidies.)


"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Just another Rand hater, showing true colors

nothing to see here

This post would be very welcome on Redstate

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

Not another one....

This kind of nonsense is happening on Twitter as well, so any kind of criticism makes one a "Rand hater?"

I donated money to Rand when he was running for senate and I don't even live in his state, so I might criticize him more harshly, does that make me a hater? No, it makes me someone that has a vested interest. If we believe in liberty, then surely you can allow people to voice their concerns without being labeled, "hater?"

This is a tactic the progressives/jingoists employ and I'm seeing it more and more by people that are in the "liberty" movement.

So you disagree with this post, state why, point out errors or offer up another angle, but to just dismiss it by saying, "Just another Rand hater.." shuts down any dialog. Just my two cents.

"Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten."
— G.K. Chesterton


This is about the bunkiest list I've ever seen.

You've included near every time he, "could've done more" as a negative, forgetting that he was doing good at the time regardless. In fact, the only thing I see on this list here that is an actual negative that he's done is, "he endorsed Romney too early."

Really? That's it? Nothing about all of the interviews and speaking out about cutting the Pentagon budget? Nothing about Industrial Hemp? Nothing about the numerous times he supports libertarian causes?

Articles like this play the following. "We want Paul to be like X, therefore, whenever he does not meet our expectations he is doing something wrong." This is incorrect. Viewed properly, with no bias and expectation, Rand is far and away the best supporter of libertarian causes, and he's doing it in the chamber where you most have to go along to get along to get support. He's doing a phenomenal job for a freshman senator.

All in all, articles like this are absurd. Look at what he actually did, not what he "could have done."

Eric Hoffer

Are some acomplishments greater than others.

For example: the filabuster that acomplished ZERO compared to the betrayal of his own father, the liberty minded suporters, and his country by endorsing the shill puppet Romney over his own father.

Should those two events be weighted as equal? So is your measurment realy an accurate assesment of who Rand Paul is?

He is the very worst possible choice to me a back stabber is the bottom of the barrel i prefer a sold out puppet at least I know he will do the predictable bidding of the preditory Rothschild bank gangster mafia orders.


People will have to make their own minds up

as to the relative weight that they give to each item.
That is far more subjective than saying whether something is good or bad (or makes little difference).

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Making our lists and checking them twice...

Wow, what a terrible guy this Rand Paul is! Come on, if this was any one else besides Ron Paul's son, most of you would be proclaiming his statments (and most of his votes) from the rooftops! Even the Iran sanction issues has some perspective:

NEW YORK -- The Senate is poised to consider updated legislation stepping up sanctions on Iran on Thursday, and due to persistence from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the bill will contain a provision making sure the measure is not used as an excuse to go to war with Iran or Syria.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Rand Paul introduced an amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization bill to formally end the war in Iraq.


He calls for an audit of the Pentagon....
He filibusters the Patriot Act...
Opposes Drones time and time again...
Introduces the Senate version of Audit the Fed...
2 Bills to end the TSA...
Constantly calls for reductions in military spending
Real solid movement towards leagalizing hemp both federally and state...

Links can all be found here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?385500-Will-Rand...

P.S. Truth be told, Rand Paul isn't trying to become the most popular blogger on the DailyPaul, but he has actually gotten a few things done...

Check out http://iroots.org/
"If you’re into political activism, at least for Ron Paul if not for anyone else, I strongly recommend spending some time with iroots.org." - Tom Woods


He voted for additional Iranian sanctions.
He voted for the 2012 US/Israel Security Partnership granting them over $9B.
He voted twice for war appropriations($625B), only voting the bill down when it included the indefinite detention clause.


1. He voted for sanctions on the Iranian central bank only. I wish they'd vote for some sanctions on our central bank.
2. I'll give you this, even though it wasn't a grant, it was a loan.
3. You mean he voted to fund the military? That's what the vote there did. When it included the indefinite detention clause he voted against it. You're not telling me he should vote against all military expenditures right? I can see the argument that it should be a smaller amount, and Paul has argued continually for shrinking the size of the Pentagon budget, but the argument it sounds like you're making is that he shouldn't have voted for any NDAA.

Eric Hoffer

Iranian Sanctions

Iranian Sanctions timeline:
Iranian Threat Reduction and Human Rights Act:
Expanding sanctions on Iran's mining, petroleum, and financial sectors.
If you want to sanction your own central bank than fine. But sanctioning the central bank of another sovereign is none of the US' business.

US-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012
You are right. But still, yuck. Rand voted for this?

Ron Paul never voted to fund illegal and immoral wars. That is the only way Congress has the ability to stop the madness. Of course Rand should not have voted it. If you want the to pay the despotic US government to defend terrorize you and others, than you pay for it. Don't advocate stealing from those of us sticking to moral principals to pay for it. The US military is simply and solely making us less safe.

I don't like Rand much

I don't like Rand much either, but he had aquite a few more positives than you list. Fr example, going ape kaka over the Libya undeclared war which extended past the war powers act. Aren't there a few more you can list?

It's a list of items since he endorsed Romney

around this time last year.

Libya was before he was running for President.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Why limit to one year?

Ok, if you limit it to that period...

But, check out this editorial by him on Jun 15


Again, I don't like him much either, but you must give him proper credit for the things he actually gets right.

I think you shouldn't limit it to one year, but I applaud your effort in calling him out on his many mistakes. We just need to be fair.

I have limited it to around this time last year

basically because around this time last year he started positioning himself for a run for the Presidency.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."