Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"Rand Paul Changes His Tune On Defense Spending"
More: http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/03/26/3639375/rand-paul-defense-spending/
[IMG][/IMG]
In his first year in the Senate, Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a budget that called for a $164 billion cut to defense spending by 2016. Military funding has often far outpaced not only our most likely enemies, but has often outpaced the entire worlds military spending combined, he wrote at the time as he outlined his plan for a draw-down and restructuring of the Department of Defense.
Just four years later, as he prepares to mount a presidential campaign in early April, Paul is changing his tune. Late Wednesday, he introduced a budget amendment which would increase the defense budget by 16 percent, or $190 billion, over the next two years, TIME reported.
For years, Paul distinguished himself among Senate Republicans by actually advocating for a reduced military presence overseas and a downsized military budget. His image as a strident critic of the military industrial complex was further solidified in his nearly 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor in which he mounted a lengthy protest against the secrecy surrounding drone strikes and delayed the confirmation of CIA Director John Brennan.
Now, as he competes with other Republicans for the conservative bases allegiance, Paul has shifted from a libertarian senator who wants to completely eliminate war spending to a likely presidential candidate who has rallied Republicans around the need to defend the country against ISIS and Islamic extremists.
Just four years later, as he prepares to mount a presidential campaign in early April, Paul is changing his tune. Late Wednesday, he introduced a budget amendment which would increase the defense budget by 16 percent, or $190 billion, over the next two years, TIME reported.
For years, Paul distinguished himself among Senate Republicans by actually advocating for a reduced military presence overseas and a downsized military budget. His image as a strident critic of the military industrial complex was further solidified in his nearly 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor in which he mounted a lengthy protest against the secrecy surrounding drone strikes and delayed the confirmation of CIA Director John Brennan.
Now, as he competes with other Republicans for the conservative bases allegiance, Paul has shifted from a libertarian senator who wants to completely eliminate war spending to a likely presidential candidate who has rallied Republicans around the need to defend the country against ISIS and Islamic extremists.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 1860 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"Rand Paul Changes His Tune On Defense Spending" (Original Post)
Jamaal510
Mar 2015
OP
Remember on how all of the libertarian assholes were telling us that Rand Paul
geek tragedy
Mar 2015
#4
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)1. No more benefit of a doubt from the antiwar libertarian crowd
In spite of my early criticisms of Sen. Paul, I have always been a firm believer in the efficacy of libertarian electoral politics and the necessity of political realism, i.e. the idea that politics is not religion. Ive been encouraged by the Senators often eloquent arguments against the War Partys destructive policies, and for the past year or so Ive praised him on many occasions in this space. Even when he endorsed bombing ISIS, whilst still holding out against putting US troops on the ground, I gave him the benefit of a doubt.
No more. By joining the wrecking crew of Cotton & Co., Sen. Paul has proven he cares more about gaining the approval of neoconservatives who will always hate him than he does about preventing a major war in the Middle East. Whats more, he clearly lacks the character it takes to be President of these United States the sense of conviction that is the essence of leadership, whether in politics, commerce, sports, or any human endeavor. No, Im not saying Sen. Paul has no real convictions: my guess is that he is relying on advisors and "handlers" and getting some pretty bad advice.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/03/10/rand-pauls-munich/
No more. By joining the wrecking crew of Cotton & Co., Sen. Paul has proven he cares more about gaining the approval of neoconservatives who will always hate him than he does about preventing a major war in the Middle East. Whats more, he clearly lacks the character it takes to be President of these United States the sense of conviction that is the essence of leadership, whether in politics, commerce, sports, or any human endeavor. No, Im not saying Sen. Paul has no real convictions: my guess is that he is relying on advisors and "handlers" and getting some pretty bad advice.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/03/10/rand-pauls-munich/
Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)2. at the end of the day, he's just another chickenhawk hack
Despite the media fawning over his supposed indie streak, I remain firmly convinced that had Baby Ron Paul been in office in 2002, he would have been yet another swept up in the rightwing spirit of Freedumb Fries and Dixie Chicks boycotts and would have proudly voted to invade Iraq.
red dog 1
(27,792 posts)3. He looks a lot like Mad magazine's Alfred E. Newman
"What me worry?"
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)4. Remember on how all of the libertarian assholes were telling us that Rand Paul
could be just as progressive as Obama and Clinton because he would have a less militaristic foreign policy?
Where did they go?
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)5. I'm curious to hear
what Medea "Stand With Rand" Benjamin's comments are about this.