The new senator from Kentucky is not his father’s clone—or is he?

[low preference guy]

3 page article about Rand Paul in the Weekly Standard (Kristol's neocon magazine)

I was interviewing Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky on February 17, in his temporary office in the Russell building on Capitol Hill, when his chief of staff Doug Stafford entered the room.

“Just giving you about a two-minute warning,” he said. “Maybe five. They’re going to do John McCain’s amendment first, and then yours. Once McCain is speaking, I’ll come in and get you and we can roll right over.”

Paul acknowledged him, then leaned back in his chair. His desk was littered with papers. A portrait of his father, congressman Ron Paul, hung on the wall behind him. A bookshelf was filled with free-market classics. He’d been reflecting on the Tea Party movement in Kentucky.

Link

[jct74]

yeah, I'm reading it right now, just came across it a few minutes ago. It's actually the cover story for this week's edition.

[jct74]

Rand says Obama did crack, LOL. I thought it was cocaine but oh well, minor detail. Still reading...

[Sola_Fide]

Good article, but stupid conclusion. Also, a REALLY stupid cover.

[jct74]

Good article, but stupid conclusion. Also, a REALLY stupid cover.

yeah I don't know about the last paragraph, what that is about. The cover seems like a dis on "End the Fed" too... wish I could get a higher resolution picture of it. I thought the article was excellent though, very happy with it.

[ForLibertyFight]

I respect Rand.
He is going to be just as good as his father IMHO

[specsaregood]

These people really hate us.

Oh and this is all we are:

The “Ron Paul Revolution” was populated with truly exotic fauna: pacifists, 9/11 Truthers, Buchananites, and Birchers.

oh and:

Grayson was taken aback. “Whoa,” he remembers thinking, “these are sort of guerrilla terrorists.”

and

Grayson drew national support from Republicans anxious that Paul’s election would mean one less vote in the Senate for an assertive foreign policy and support for Israel. Grayson raised hundreds of thousands of dollars, he told me, from pro-Israel donors. But national security and Israel were not the most important issues for Kentucky Republicans. The economy, the debt, and opposition to President Obama mattered more.

It really is all about Israel for many of these people isn't it? The US takes a backseat in priorities.

AHAH! The writer lets his bias slip:

Try as they might, Paul’s opponents in both the Republican and Democratic parties have been unable to exile him to the borderlands where conservatism mingles with conspiracism.
This inability is particularly frustrating because Paul and his father share core beliefs.

The writer admits that it is frustrating that they haven't been able to exile Rand because he shares his core beliefs with his father!

This comment:

Ron Paul has raised the specter of the “Israel Lobby,”

Is highly amusing given what I already quoted above about the people funding Grayson putting Israel interests ahead of the US.

[sailingaway]

I read the first page then quit. I refuse to dislike Rand just because Kristol's group is comparing him favorably to Ron.

I think they are trying to turn or moderate him with the suggestion of future support.

*fingers in my ears* "LA ,LA, LA, LA, LA"

[malkusm]

This is nothing but an attempt to paint the ideas as crazy. This article was written because they see, correctly, that Rand presents himself very well to the average Republican and represents the libertarian ideas of his father in an appealing way....and they are scared to death of it.

[specsaregood]

I read the first page then quit. I refuse to dislike Rand just because Kristol's group is comparing him favorably to Ron.
I think they are trying to turn or moderate him with the suggestion of future support.
*fingers in my ears* "LA ,LA, LA, LA, LA"

Naw, it is a great read; because it correctly points out how Rand has neutered their attacks. They might very well hate Rand more than Ron.

[sailingaway]

Naw, it is a great read; because it correctly points out how Rand has neutered their attacks. They might very well hate Rand more than Ron.

Oh. Well, in that case, I'll read it.

[Dreamofunity]

I thought it was pretty good. Interesting read, regardless of their motivations.

[ronaldo23]

The article completely marginalizes teh coalitions and alliances on specific issues that Ron has made, by suggesting he is a "lone wolf"

[specsaregood]

The article completely marginalizes teh coalitions and alliances on specific issues that Ron has made, by suggesting he is a "lone wolf"

Yup and completely discredits itself by suggesting Dr. Paul never works with those he disagrees with on some issues. He is quite possibly the most bi-partisan person in congress. They just hate it because he is bi-partisan on issues that they disagree with him on.

[Thargok]

It did call the Bush Presidency a failure on conservative issues, so I guess you take your victories where you can get them.

[Romulus]

Yes Rand is the biggest threat to the Neocons followed by Ron... they really have no way of handling him... and it will spell the beginning of the end to their ideals the more Rand is given a national stage.

[Agorism]

Is this title alluding to the "The last temptation of Christ?"

[NewRightLibertarian]

Pretty fair article. Very surprised.

[sratiug]

Pretty fair article. Very surprised.

I think it is much better than fair, to Rand at least, and outstanding considering the neocon source. And what is good for Rand will be good for Ron imo.

[LibertyEagle]

The genius of Rand Paul is that, by picking his battles and finessing his message, he earns mainstream credibility without jettisoning his small-government and non-interventionist bonafides.

They are scared to death of Rand.

[HarryBrowneLives]

It did call the Bush Presidency a failure on conservative issues, so I guess you take your victories where you can get them.

... Only because they couldn't spin it enough with the narrative that growing the government with endless, new, entitlement programs and occupying the world as though we were the Romans to win another election. I supect the Kristols and Frums will be a little less overt next time around. Their place in the party is closer to the back of the room with the wait staff than at the front table with a place card now.

[Liberty Shark]

Extremely interesting article considering the source - The Weekly Standard the official neocon magazine.

[goRPaul]

From the article:

So far he’s avoided the temptations of both the fringe and the GOP establishment. The rewards will be great if he can keep his balance. Indeed, he could turn out to be one of the most important conservative statesmen in decades.

(!!!)

Pretty fair article. In fact, I'd bet that at least a dozen neocons soiled themselves while reading it.

[Sola_Fide]

^^^ Even the neocons are coming to grips with how important Rand is. This is good news for libertarian ideas going forward.

[MaxPower]

I dislike the part which seems to imply (in contrasting Rand to him) that Ron Paul is not willing to work with or talk to those with whom he disagrees; this simply could not be more false.

[outspoken]

Rand will be a force to reckon with in the years to come, just a question if he wants to make the personal sacrifice to tie on the most thankless job in the world, second only to being the Messiah.

[BlackTerrel]

Good article. Thanks for posting.

The people reading this as a negative piece need to think about from what lens their reading this stuff. You're not going to get better than this.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'll be happy when I see the Weekly Standard implode and The Freeman become the go-to mag.

[Restore-America-NOW]

Rand is alright, better than 90% of American politicians. He's not half the man his father is though...

[Inkblots]

It's a good article on the whole, but I just had to shake my head at this:

His exchange with Rudy Giuliani at the Columbia debate over the roots of 9/11—Paul argued U.S. foreign policy had invited the attack—seemed to doom his (already slim) chances for the nomination.

Of course they parrot Giuliani's spin of Ron's argument rather than what Ron actually said. But I suppose, as the flagship GOP neoconservative magazine, they'd be bound to, eh?