Rand Paul on Fox News Sunday: Voters Ready for a Libertarian Republican Candidate in 2016

Latest Rand Paul Op-Ed: Who's Next on the Drone Kill List?

Senator Rand Paul's second weekly column in the Washington Times, this time on the drone issue.  Here are some excerpts:

If you're launching a missile on U.S. troops, if you are launching a missile toward the United States, if you are hijacking a plane, if you are setting off a bomb, if you are leveling an AK-47 at any one of our soldiers — by all means and with great expedition, we will drop a drone bomb on you. No one is arguing against employing immediate and lethal force against anyone whose finger approaches a trigger.

President Obama's drone killing goes a great deal further, however. Mr. Obama tells us that an "imminent threat" need not be "immediate." What? Only a group of lawyers could argue that imminent really means the opposite.

The most infamous American killed by drone was Anwar al-Awlaki. He was targeted for months — long enough and publicly enough that his father actually protested in court but was not heard.

Now, I have no sympathy for al-Awlaki. From what I've read in the lay press, I have concluded that he was a traitor. As a juror, I would have voted to convict him of treason. My question is, since his targeting was public and prolonged, why did we not try him for treason? If he didn't show up, we could have tried him in absentia. If secret testimony was needed, it could have been heard before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Why should we do all this for a traitor? Because we're Americans. Because we prize our belief in trial by jury overseen by a judge. It is in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Because what makes us distinctly American is our belief in adjudicated justice. Because what the terrorists wish to destroy is exactly that freedom.

Moreover, a few weeks after we killed al-Awlaki, we killed his 16-year-old son with a drone strike. Can a 16-year-old be a terrorist or a traitor? Absolutely, but am I the only American who believes that this 16-year-old also deserved the contemplation of a jury and a judge?

The president is a politician. He is a politician from a party opposite mine, but my opposition to his drone killing is an opposition to any politician, Republican or Democrat, becoming an imperial executioner-in-chief. No politician should ever be granted that power.

...

I have no sympathy for murderers and rapists within the United States. I do, however, insist that the murderers and rapists we punish be guilty and found guilty by a jury and a judge.

Why? Why can we not just kill Americans who dissent? For one, because our government has already shown recklessness in defining who is a terrorist. Fusion centers in Missouri defined pro-life and pro-border-security hawks as potential terrorists. The Department of Justice produced a list of characteristics of terrorists that we should report to the government: people missing fingers; people who've changed the color of their hair; people who like to pay in cash; people who have more than seven days of food; and people who buy weatherized ammunition.

Rand Paul: In What Universe Did Obama Cut the Deficit by $2 Billion?

Senator Rand Paul goes full mock in his USA Today interview.  When talking about Obama's claim that he reduced the deficit by $2 trillion, he said "in what universe?.. Does that mean because he didn't add $8 trillion that he reduced it by $2 trillion" (h/t Freedom's Lighthouse):

National Journal: Rand Paul is the Republican to Watch in 2013

A nice piece by Josh Kraushaar:

One of the most intriguing sideplots from Senate Republicans' successful filibuster blocking Chuck Hagel from becoming Defense Secretary was that one of the GOP ringleaders was recently tagged by critics as someone who shared his more-isolationist worldview.

But freshman Kentucky senator Rand Paul, who openly talks about his presidential ambitions for 2016, is playing the long game – and his politically savvy positioning suggests he'll be a major national player. Unlike his father, he's not interested in pursuing ideologically charged issues just for the sake of making a point, he's learning how to make an impact in Washington.

One senior Republican leadership aide gushed with admiration over the freshman senator, emphasizing that he's been able to tailor his libertarian ideology toward legislation that holds broader appeal. The adviser touted his involvement on right-to-work legislation, his call to audit the Federal Reserve, and even his leadership on legalizing industrial hemp – legislation first pushed by his father, which has now won support from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

"Rand is somebody who has the generational know-how to turn it into 21st century machine. He gets branding. He understands there's a need for credibility," said the adviser. "He understands he doesn't have the answers to everything. He's not afraid of input, but is totally confident in listening to input to help achieve his goals."

...

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has been getting all the national attention lately, landing on the cover ofTIME, National Review and our latest issue of National Journal. But the senator who delivered the lesser-watched Tea Party reaction is the one who is shaping up to have an equally big impact – and could shake up Republican party politics in the run-up to the 2016 presidential race.

Honestly, I was really worried about how Rand Paul would vote on Chuck Hagel's Nomination

I have to say I'm really happy that Rand Paul was able to come to the right conclusion and vote to block the Chuck Hagel nomination.  Voting for Chuck Hagel, who is pretty much unabashedly anti-Israel, would have completely sabotaged all the inroads that Rand Paul has been able to make in the Jewish community and the pro-Israel evangelical community since taking his trip to Israel.  I seriously would have had second thoughts as it would have shown that Rand Paul may be more like his father than he let on.  After all, Chuck Hagel's policy prescriptions and views on the world are often indistinguishable from those of Ron Paul.  He's a blame America first, anti-Israel nutbag.  And I can see that Rand Paul really wrestled with the issue, as he also shared a lot of Chuck Hagel's non-interventionism and desire to cut Pentagon spending.  Luckily though, Hagel's incompetent defenses of past statements and desire to hide money he received from questionable sources gave Rand Paul a great out (heck he even voted to approve John Kerry after all as he believes in giving Presidents leeway) and pissed off all the right people in the process.

Anti-Semitic Ron Paul Supporters Pissed Off at Rand Paul (Again)

I'm very glad Rand Paul made the right decision and agreed to filibuster Hagel for two main reasons.  One, Hagel who is in the pay of Iran (and/or their proxies) and an anti-semite, should NOT be Secretary of Defense of this country.  Second, Rand Paul has pissed off all the right people, the people I really really like seeing pissed off.  Check this out from the Daily Caller:

That explanation wasn't good enough for Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com and a strong supporter of Ron Paul. "It's time for libertarians to treat Rand Paul like the turncoat he is: boycott," Raimondo tweeted. "No $$, no support, & start calling him Paul the Lesser."

Daniel Larison, a blogger and senior editor for the American Conservative magazine, called it "an awful, indefensible vote."

Scott McConnell, one of the magazine's founding editors, went a step further: "If Rand Paul persists on going demagogic on Hagel, he will have established beyond any serious doubt that regardless of who his father is, he is Bill Kristol and Jennifer Rubin's boy."

Republicans Are Already Worrying Rand Paul Could Run As a Third Party Candidate

Ron Fournier at the National Journal wrote an interesting piece on how Republican and Democratic insiders are worries about the end of the two-party system.  Of course, Rand Paul figures prominently:

Inside the cozy enclaves of GOP bonhomie—hunkered at the tables of see-and-be-seen Washington restaurants—Republican leaders are sourly predicting a party-busting independent presidential bid by a tea-party challenger, like Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., in 2016.

To them, the GOP apocalypse looms larger than most realize. Dueling State of the Union rebuttals and Karl Rove's assault on right-wing candidates are mere symptoms of an existential crisis that is giving the sturdiest Republicans heartburn.

And yet, the heart of the matter extends beyond the GOP. My conversations this week with two Republican officials, along with a Democratic strategist's timely memo, reflect a growing school of thought in Washington that social change and a disillusioned electorate threaten the entire two-party system.

Seem like a lot to swallow? Allow me to describe my last few days at work.

Between bites of an $18.95 SteakBurger at the Palm, one of Washington's premier expense-account restaurants, Republican consultant Scott Reed summed up the state of politics and his beloved GOP. "The party," he told me, "is irrelevant."

He cited the familiar litany of problems: demographic change, poor candidates, ideological rigidity, deplorable approval ratings, and a rift between social and economic conservatives.

"It's leading to some type of crash and reassessment and change," said Reed, who ran Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign and remains an influential lobbyist and operative. "It can't continue on this path."

Reed sketched a hypothetical scenario under which Paul runs for the Republican nomination in 2016, loses after solid showings in Iowa and other states run by supporters of his father (former GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul), bolts the GOP, and mounts a third-party bid that undercuts the Republican nominee.

Paul, a tea-party favorite who was elected to the Senate in 2010, told USA Today on Wednesday that he was interested in running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. "I do want to be part of the national debate," he said.

What are the odds of Paul or another GOP defector splitting the party? Reed asked me to repeat the question—and then grimaced. "There's a real chance," he replied.

The next morning, Rep. Reid Ribble of Wisconsin dipped his spoon into a bowl of strawberries, sugar, and pink milk—and declared the era of two major parties just about over. "I think we're at the precipice of a breakdown of the two-party system," said the Wisconsin Republican.

Voters are tired of partisan rancor and institutional incompetence, Ribble said, pointing to polls that suggest the number of independent voters is rising.

"Ross Perot was a goofy guy," he said of the deficit hawk who mounted two independent presidential bids in the 1990s. "If he was packaged as a different guy and had the Internet, he would have emerged [as president]. The warning bell he was sounded then is getting louder today."

2016 is a long way away, who knows what will happen then.  If the Republican establishment sabotages conservative candidates with the help of their friends in the right-leaning press, just like they did in 2012, it could happen (Karl Rove is already planning the attack ads as we speak on anyone who isn't Jeb Bush or Chris Christie).  Back in April, I wrote this in a piece titled "Screw the GOP, They Don't Seem to Want My Vote Anyway":

I'm done.  I'm a lifelong Republican and I'm done.  I've been a Republican since I was 6 and I saw Reagan speak on our old 13" black and white television set about freedom and about the evils of the Soviet Union, where I was born.  I grew up listening to Reagan and I kind of always thought that he was what the Republican Party stood for.  For individual liberty at home & abroad.  "Moderates" like George H. W. Bush seemed like some sort of aberration to me, an exception to the conservative Republican rule.  Looking back though, it's pretty clear that Ronald Reagan was the aberration.  In 1988, instead of nominating the father of the Reagan tax cuts, Jack Kemp, the GOP nominated the anti-Israel squishy moderate George H. W. Bush.  In 1996, instead of nominating the stalwart conservative Phil Gramm (lifetime ACU rating of 95) or the flat tax visionary Steve Forbes, the GOP nominated another squishy moderate, Bob Dole (lifetime ACU rating of only 82).  2000 was a joke as the establishment had pre-decided that W was going to be the nominee and he really didn't have any real opposition.  W, the "compassionate conservative".  We all know how that ended.  Ballooning federal spending and even a new entitlement!  It was so bad that even in his home state of Texas I heard of people say that he destroyed the Republican Party by governing the way he did.

Looking back before Reagan, I think the last Republican President I actually would have liked was Calvin Coolidge, who was elected in 1924, a whopping 88 years ago (even Reagan's 1980 election was a hell of  along time ago, a whopping 32 years).  So in 88 years, there have been a total of 2 Republican Presidents and only 3 nominees (add Barry Goldwater in 1964 to the mix) who believed in small government, free markets and individual liberty.  Being a Republican who believes in those things seems to be a great way to torture yourself.  You are constantly tempted into thinking "maybe this time" but more often than not they end up giving you someone you despise but feel you have to support as they are the lesser of two evils.  

I thought better of it because I couldn't sit out an election versus someone like Obama.  But the Republicans need to stop worrying about getting a member of their gang elected and start worrying about promoting actual conservative values or else there will be a large percentage of conservative voters that WILL bolt the party, especially if someone like Rand Paul is at the helm of a new effort.  For those familiar with history, the Whig Party went from controlling the Presidency through 1853 to not even being a party in 1856 (though the American Party, with former Whig President Millard Fillmore at head of the ticket, did come in as #3 in the votes).  

It's also possible that conservatives could get together and form a proper political party and then act somewhat like the Conservative Party of New York (though be actually Conservative).  Sometimes they would endorse the Republican, but if they don't agree with the choice, they would field their own candidate.  That would act as an incentive for the Republicans to nominate a candidate that is acceptable to conservatives.  Having a convention before the Republican primaries even start would probably maximize the Tea Party's impact.  Imagine if a conservative nominating convention had come together and endorsed just 1 of the conservatives running for the nomination before Iowa in 2012.  Instead of the vote being horribly split, allowing the only moderate in the race to win race after race with under 50% of the vote, the story might have been vastly different.