"Rand Paul Changes His Tune On Defense Spending"

[Jamaal510]

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 world’s 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 base’s 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.

[jakeXT]

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. I’ve been encouraged by the Senator’s often eloquent arguments against the War Party’s destructive policies, and for the past year or so I’ve 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. What’s 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, I’m 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/

[Jamaal510]

6. OUCH!

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

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]

3. He looks a lot like Mad magazine's Alfred E. Newman

"What me worry?"

[geek tragedy]

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]

5. I'm curious to hear

what Medea "Stand With Rand" Benjamin's comments are about this.