Unlike like Ron Paul, who stuck to principle and just tried his best to gently and kindly explain it, Rand Paul appears to do this....ZIG ZAG.
He ZIGS towards the principled fight, then when the votes are in and he is clearly going to lose the principled fight, he ZAGS back over to get undernieth the GOP tent for safety....
Take one of his first national TV interviews, the one with Rachael Maddow..... There he ventured out on Principal and tried to explain to the smart intelligent Rachael Maddow about how a part of the Civil Rights act violates private property and that causes some problems down the road. Yet she was not having any of it, would not entertain it, and instead jumped right in to playing the Gotcha-let-me-spin-you-as-evil-racist-republican. The story blew up and Rand Paul ZAGGED right over to Sean Hannity for GOP big tent cover and safety. Like his father Ron, the LEFT had what they wanted to give him; "a race problem",.
Rand Paul ZIGS over for Principle in the Senate on Iran sanctions, but soon sees that battle as lost, so he ZAGS back into the GOP big tent and votes with the crowd.
Rand Paul ZIGS against Foriegn Aid, but runs into big pro-israel resistance, so rather than zagging back into GOP line, he simply scratches in an exception to CUT ALL FOREIGN AID TO THE MIDDLE EAST: Except to our 'friend Israel'. With that position, he gets to ZIG outside the GOP tent on Principle, yet stay inside the GOP tent for safety. Expect Rand Paul to keep that voice on that issue.
Rand Paul ZIGs for his dad in the GOP election, but wasted no time ZAGGING back into the GOP big tent the minute that the votes are clearly not going in Dr Ron Pauls favor. For me and many of us, the fact that he jumped to support Romeny so fast was shocking, but what many of us ( and myself included ) did not notice was how fast he jumped off the Romney train once Romney made it clear on a neocon Foreign Policy. It was now 'safe' to ZIG back to that issue, once he had zagged back underneath the GOP tent by endorsing Romney weeks earlier. Most of all, we should all take note that he did not ZIG away from the foreign Policy issue by endorsing Romney, but rather, made it clear he was ZAGGING away from Romney because of his neocon stance. Yes, the player plays the game. And he appears to be playing as principally as possible and still be a Senator that "has the support of the people".
Rand Paul on Chuck Hagel. Here the principle is a wiser foreign policy, or rather, a foriegn policy that is NeoCon free. So Rand Zigs and Zags differently here. He plays the game. He joins the GOP on its resistance to Hagel, but when its clear they have "lost the votes" as he explained to Glenn Beck, he Zigs and votes for Hagel (which secretly he may have wanted all along).
So here we have our first "Republican-libertarian leaning" Senator, and he is different than our first Libertarian-republican leaning Congressman from Texas.
It seems in Rand Paul, we will have to learn to hate the Game, but not the player. We will have to learn and expect him to ZIG OUT and ZAG Back into the GOP big tent.
Watch him, when the votes are not there to stop Brennan as CIA director, go ahead and vote for Brennan, thus ZAGGING back into the fold as another Kentucky "Great Compromiser".
Like a great player who "plays the game well", he collects points for being "on principle" and he then collects points for being "a team player". A very different style than his dad. I can imagine the young twenty something Rand Paul at the dinner table and at various Ron Paul congressional events as always saying to his self and to his dad, "But I would play this differently". Well now he is playing differently. Perhaps it is us who need to be schooled and wise up to his methods of zigging and zagging. That is, blame the game, not the player.
Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!
"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820