Double speak may work for a politician trying to appease, but I won't support it. It should be easy for Rand Paul to say it is unacceptable for law enforcement to kill ANY suspect with a drone, even if they are walking out of a liquor store with $50 and a gun, as he said. What Rand Paul said wasn't a mis-statement. He was clearly trying to say he supports law enforcement using drones (even armed drones) in hot pursuit, just that he doesn't support them using drones to spy on us unchecked. It brings up the obvious point of who will check the power of the state when you say government can use drones a little bit, just not too much.
It reminds me of a quote from Rand Paul's father about someone being "a little bit pregnant". You either are or aren't. This most recent drone double speak is much like his foreign aid position (or non-position). Rand Paul wants to cut foreign aid, but start with countries "burning our flag", and don't immediately cut aid to Israel, and make sure there are no "draconian" cuts in aid to Israel. Are you for or against foreign aid? Rand's positions of trying to straddle the fence are a major turn off.
We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.
-C. S. Lewis
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: