Tuesday’s election results were pretty good for progressives. The retirement of that windbag chameleon Sen. Arlen Specter is long overdue, and pro-labor forces were able to push Sen. Blanche Lincoln into a runoff in Arkansas. Even the big tea party win in Kentucky has its bright side.

Count me as one lefty liberal who is not the least bit unhappy with the victory by Rand Paul in Kentucky’s Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. Not because it might make it easier for some Democratic Party hack to win in the general, but rather because he seems to be a principled libertarian in the mold of his father, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and we need more of that impulse in the Congress. What’s wrong with cutting back big government that mostly exists to serve the interests of big corporations? Surely it would be better if that challenge came from populist progressives of the left, in the Bernie Sanders mold, but this is Kentucky we’re talking about.

Rand Paul, like his dad, is worthy of praise for standing in opposition to the Wall Street bailout, which will come to be marked as the greatest swindle in U.S. history and which was, as he noted on his website, an unconstitutional redistribution of income in favor of the undeserving rich:

“Federal bailouts reward inefficient and corrupt management, rob taxpayers, hurt smaller and more responsible private firms, exacerbate our budget problems, explode national debt, and destroy our U.S. dollar. Even more importantly, any bailout of private industry is in direct violation of the Constitution. It is a transfer of wealth from those who have earned to those who have squandered.”

Of course the joker in the deck is the word principled before libertarian, and, as many online commentators have noted, Rand Paul is a bit more inclined to waffle on an interventionist foreign policy than is his father. While he would have insisted on a declaration of war before the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq, he argues that Afghanistan, where the 9/11 attack was planned, was a legitimate target but that Iraq was not. In either case, as he insists correctly, a congressional declaration of war was constitutionally required:

“If I had been in the U.S. Senate I would have stopped them and said no more, we will have a vote. We will declare war with Afghanistan. We will declare war with Iraq. I would have voted for a declaration of war with Afghanistan but I would have voted against a declaration of war with Iraq. But I would have made them vote. And that’s the problem, they no longer pay attention to the rules.”
In any case, his Republican establishment opponent, Trey Grayson, attacked Paul for his opposition to an interventionist foreign policy as well as for favoring the legalization of marijuana, and on both counts it is a good sign that Kentucky voters rejected those lines of attack.

True, to wax warmly about a potential Republican libertarian senator is an act of desperation for a liberal who still hopes that the federal government might be moved by the embattled band of progressive Democrats in Congress to put the power of the federal government at the service of the needy. But when has that happened recently? With a commanding Democratic majority in Congress and a former community organizer as president, the focus of economic policy in this time of enormous economic pain has been on saving the bankers who created this mess.

With the Democrats trusting our well-being to the likes of Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner, who under President Bill Clinton did so much to enable Wall Street greed, would it not be good to have at least one Republican senator questioning the Washington spending spree? Yes, Rand Paul is bad on a lot of social issues I care about, and no, I don’t embrace his faith in the social compassion of unfettered free markets. But the alternative we have experienced is not one of a progressive government properly restraining free-market greed but rather, as was amply demonstrated in the pretend regulation of the oil industry, of government as a partner in corporate crime. It is the power of the corporate lobbyists that is at issue, and it is refreshing that candidate Paul has labeled Washington lobbyists a “distinctly criminal class” and favors a ban on lobbying and campaign contributions by those who hold more than a million dollars in federal contracts.

Heresy, I know, but it is only thanks to Ron Paul, the father and hopefully the mentor of the potential Kentucky senator, that we got a congressional mandate to audit the Fed’s role in the banking bailout. How bad could it be to have another irascible Paul in the Congress?
_______

About author
Robert Scheer is the editor of Truthdig. rscheer@truthdig.com
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-scheer/28873/who-s-afraid-of-rand-paul

Sounds interesting


now Im wondering how many people who vote for this inexperienced politician will have knocked OBama's 'inexperience' when he ran.



Personally, I dont think politicians have to have had political experience specifically, as long as they are intelligent, adequately familiar with the structure of government, carry themself with integrity in the public and professionalism on the job, and have worked in some social capacity. I think the proof will be in his campaign , just like OBamas was and it should be interesting to watch how things unfold.

But I guarantee that what is good for the goose is good for the gander and after an ELECTION of the people , there will still be some that insist the votes were JUST because of his father(like those who said OBama was voted in JUST because of his race) and couldnt possibly be about the issues.

I personaly voted for Obama because he was the best candidate out there. Imagine if we had wacky Mcain and Crazy Palin running the country We would all be singing "Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran and comenting on Palins fashion. I am so glad most of america woke up in time to choose the best man out there.

I agree, I think that most of the time, people vote for the candidate they feel is best,,,,,perhaps I am naive that way,,lol

I understand some people do think t hat way the guy I worked on the Obama campaign with was realy big on how we worked on an historical campaign being he was the first black candidate etc etc. This guy does hospice work and was a former republican due to the abortion issue(big time catholik) he changed his ways after 8 years of bush. My opinion was he was the best man for the job and I didnt pay attention to skin tone.

Ohhhhhh...you mean all he has to do is come up with a couple of " slam dunk " words and he, too, can get away with not taking a specific position on anything???

AWESOME!!!!

Wow. Sitting around singing " Kiss kiss kiss kiss Commie *** " is SO much better.

And by the way....the media IS commenting on Michelle's fashion sense....so that particular tidbit in your argument is a wash at best.

The vast majority of people vote either by party lines through tradition( " My dad voted Republican so I will vote Republican " AND I AM NOT SPEAKING FOR MYSELF PERSONALLY ) OR they depend on the media to TELL them who the best candidate is.

If the MSM suddenly decided that Obama was no longer the Messiah and started touting a Republican candidate in the next Presidential Election the way they did Obama....I can GUARANTEE that Republican candidate would win the election.

People these days are too damn lazy to educate themselves and actually vote for the best person for the job rather than the best " personality ".

The MSM gave Bush a free pass for all his failures and still does. They didnt jump on the obama band wagon untill it was obviouse the guy had a huge backing and they would lose all credability if they ignored him. Oh and the reasone I voted for obama was because I did educate myself.

Only the under educated do that for the most part.

They believe the garbage ads on the TV and that is the biggest problem.

IT does seem as if the majority of political ads are an attempt to convince you NOT to vote for the other candidate instead of an attempt to convince you that you SHOULD vote for theirs,,,


but then media of all types strives much more on negative than positive,,,

He will have his Fathers experience.

For those who knew more than what's sold to them by MajorSuckMindfck, we saw more than just two candidates available.

Ron Paul was for the interest of the people.

I even think, if he were asked about it, would end the welfare-for-life, for ex-presidents.

What is his sons stance on term limits for senators?

He will have his Fathers experience.

Any support of that,, ? Experience is a personal thing, not a biological one.

Did you ever dance the twist? Or did you attend Husseins University of Shuck and Jive? He's an expert liar and word twister.

You real good at twistin' words.

As I recall, his daddy is still alive. His Daddy can also verbally and electronically communicate with him.

His Daddy is a very straight up, righteous dude.

His Daddy can offer his experience and expertise.

lol, did you go to the school of ad hominem debate?

no shucking and jiving,, I actually just asked an honest question.

Experience cant be LEARNED from someone else,,people can be EDUCATED about others experiences

I cant become an accountant because my mother was one and shared her experiences with me,,,,my experience will only be counted as what I have done

I was not asking about his daddy, I asked what is the support about what HIS experiences have been,,,besides listening to his dad(Which is great but still not the same as having personal experience)

you might not be able to be an accountant, but if she was honest and taught you to be that way, it more than likely transfers. Ideology and core principles are not a job. It's something you either learn from someone or you learn it through life experiences. There is a reason Rand's positions are so similar to his father's.

Rand Paul said he was going to take the country back. I sleep alot but at what point was the country lost and who's he taking it back from? Did Joe Biden lose America in a texas hold em game ?

I guess you are going to find out soon enough.. I can't wait to see what you have to say when a tea party guy is going to be your Senator..

haha...

oh my goodness, I was not referring to shared ideologies and principles,,the statement wasnt that he would have his fathers ideologies and principles...


the statement was he would have his dads experience,,, my question was about EXPERIENCE

Your earlier comment was about your mothers accounting experience wouldn't translate to you. Ron and Rand are both doctors and soon going to both be members of congress. I would say that Rand can call on his fathers many years of experience in Congress if he has questions or needs some advice. If you were an accountant you would be able to do the same with your mother.

When you are about to embark on a new career, one in which your father happens to already have vast experience, that experience will help the son. Period..