'Why don't you all tell me what you want to hear and I'll say that?'
Sen. Rand Paul
is not a libertarian. Yes, he makes noises in that general direction; no, it still does not make him a libertarian. People believe Rand Paul is a libertarian because his father was, generally speaking, libertarian-ish, but these things are not controlled by genes or blood type. Inheriting the mailing list
does not make it so.
His father, Ron Paul is a “libertarian cult figure” who had tremendous appeal to young Republicans. Rand Paul is clearly marketing himself as the heir apparent to those supporters [...]
... with beer cozies and vaguely scammy-seeming "camera blockers," yes. But as all the wags point out, while Rand Paul may be marketing himself as the candidate of freedom and whatnot, his actual stances conveniently align far more comfortably with the usual faux-evangelical Republican crowd. He is against both abortion rights and marriage equality. He is opposed to the legalization of the demon weed, that most cherished and critical "libertarian" value; he merely wants to lessen, but not eliminate, criminal punishments for being caught with it. He is pro-military-strikes in the Middle East—a particular slap in dad's face, that one?—and is so rote in his criticisms of Obama's diplomacy toward Iran that he could be swapped with
any other Senate Republican without difficulty.
Weighing in on the deal framework Tuesday for the first time, Paul voiced skepticism. "The difference between President Obama and myself: he seems to think you can negotiate from a position of weakness," he said.
Which is presumably something he cribbed from a Republican foreign affairs fortune cookie, since there has certainly been little evidence Rand Paul has any more substantive thoughts on the matter himself. Unless we're counting the beer cozies, of course.
Of the two things Rand Paul is most known for, both speak poorly of the man. Paul first gained CPAC-level fame with a faux-filibuster on the floor of the Senate opposing the use of armed drones against American citizens; this was enough to launch a Stand with Rand movement that thundered into dominance during that year's conference, but Paul unceremoniously walked back his bold convictions only a short time later, stating opposition to using armed drones against American citizens only on American soil, not abroad, and voicing support for the domestic use of drones by law enforcement provided that warrants were obtained and such. Even before that candidate but not-senator Rand Paul made a big splash when he proposed the elimination of all U.S. foreign aid, a small-government government fantasy that made small-government isolationists swoon, since he included even Israel in that bold declaration; you have not heard anything about it since because the moment Rand Paul won office and began contemplating a run for higher office it was clear that "no aid to Israel" was just below pledging your soul to Satan on the Republican list of things Republican presidential candidates should not say.
Despite the family name, Paul is a very conventional conservative Republican. Hawkish, pro-military-spending, pro-Evangelical-belief-system, anti-abortion anti-gay anti-you-kids-today-on-my-lawn, and yet he still benefits from a base fairly certain that he's a small-government libertarian-ish figure based on nothing more than his name. I don't know that I'd rate that as a plus, though Paul himself seems to be convinced of it. Sooner or later, in all the publicity, candidate Paul is going to have to stand up on a debate stage and say things that infuriate either the people that think he's a libertarian or the people who think he's a social conservative. There is a small inner cult who is devoted enough to the Paul family name that they are truly unconcerned with his actual opinions on things, but to the rest of the Republican base it's not clear that he brings anything to the campaign that other candidates cannot match or exceed. Again, unless we're counting the beer cozies.