I think we can afford to reserve judgment on Rand for now. he is in the Senate (right now probably the best Senator we have), and not up for any kind of election until 2016. He should not have our automatic support in 2016 just because of his last name; but his last name coupled with his voting record so far makes him someone to pay attention to.
keep an eye on what he does... moments like this should make us wary of him, but by the time 2016 comes around we need to evaluate him based on what his actual voting record looks like. if he pals around with Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney, but at the end of the day has a liberty voting record at like 80 or 90 percent and he's actually gotten things done, then I don't think we should disqualify him for the personalities he associated with himself along the way. "by their fruits you shall know them"... even Jesus palled around with tax collectors.
that doesn't mean we have to be happy about the things he's doing in electoral politics. if a viable alternative to McConnell actually rises up in Kentucky in a 2014 primary, I'm not going to be very happy with Rand if he stands with McConnell then (though I won't be surprised if he does). I actually doubt we'll see someone viable come up against McConnell in the first place, though I'd like to see them knock him out.
In the end, we won't really need to make a judgment about Rand until 2016. In 2016, if he's running for president, his last name shouldn't give him our automatic loyalty; but his voting record should allow him a fair hearing. a good enough voting record can counterbalance, IMO, some of the empty rhetoric and bad company he's collecting over the years. it's when his voting record starts to seriously veer off course that we need to start disqualifying him in 2016 (either for president, or for Senator from Kentucky).
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Dai