Comment: The House is checkers, the Senate is Chess!

(See in situ)

The House is checkers, the Senate is Chess!

the thing is: pretty much everything I object to in Rand Paul's votes amounts to strategic maneuvering at places where his vote would not actually make a difference, so as long as he keeps doing good things for liberty in the senate and does occasionally go down fighting, I'm willing to look past some of those bad votes on sanctions and such as not making him a "lesser evil" in the senate, per se.

Listen, I love that Ron always voted "no" on principle even when it wouldn't matter. But the House and the Senate are two completely different animals, no one in the House cares about one or two "cooky" principled voters because they can easily marginalize them. For a Senator to be effective, every vote has to be a strategic move. We're all watching Rand play chess and bitching and moaning when he sacrifices a pawn or two to save himself from checkmate and keep in the game... he's got some great gambits aimed at checkmating them and having a real shot at the presidency.

SO far he can be characterized in the Senate as fighting hard for many things and strategically retreating in some of the fights he has no chance of winning anyway. Can you point to anything he's done that can not easily be characterized this way? Right now the only complaint is that he isn't giving enough symbolic lone "no" votes (although he does have some, like that bill that basically authorized force against Iran where the vote was 90 to 1), that he isn't a marginalized Senator Dr. No.