With Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky retiring, his seat is open in the 2010 election. The most interesting candidate to replace Bunning is Ron Paul’s son, Rand Paul. Rand is running to be the Republican nominee against a more establishment candidate, Secretary of State Trey Grayson. The Democrats have a competitive primary shaping up, as well, between Attorney General Jack Conway and Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo. Chris Bowers asks a question.
Rand Paul is in a reasonably close primary for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in Kentucky. According to the two polls on the campaign, he trails Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson by an average of 13%. With the money bombs that the Paulites will send his way, with the teabaggers looking to become a force in Republican primaries, and with the general anti-establishment mood in the air right now, he could really win that nomination.
Given this, as a progressive, I have to wonder if there is a good reason why I shouldn’t be contributing to Rand Paul’s campaign for Kentucky Senate. My quick analysis suggests that such a contribution would be for the good of the cause.
First, if Rand Paul wins the Republican nomination for Kentucky Senate, current polling indicates that it would improve the chances of the Democratic nominee to win the campaign. In every poll, Paul performs worse than Grayson against both potential Democratic candidates.
Second, if Rand is anything like his father–and he certainly seems to be–then even if he were to win the general election, he would defect and vote with Democrats more often than any Republican Senator outside the state of Maine. On the votes that matter, Rand Paul’s father, Ron, votes with progressives more often than any other Republican in Congress– except for Rodney Alexander who was a Democrat until mid-2004 (Ralph Hall, third among Republicans who vote with progressives, was a Democrat until 1995). With a lifetime progressive crucial votes ranking of 23.50%, Paul even leaves supposed Republican moderates like Mike Castle (15.40%) and Mark Kirk (10.30%) in the dust. Paul towers over life-long Republicans when it comes to voting with Democrats.
Grayson, by contrast, would just be another drone in the Republican Borg collective, who we could count on for exactly zero votes of any importance. Paul would legitimately be much, much better than Grayson.
Money can be spent in a variety of ways, but spending it on Republican primaries doesn’t rank high on my list. Even though I don’t disagree with Bowers’s basic analysis, he is overlooking something. If the assumption is that Rand is going to vote and behave in a similar manner to his father, it matters a great deal that we are discussing a Senate seat, rather than a House seat.
Take a look at any number of House roll calls and you’ll notice something a bit odd. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are very frequently listed as voting with the opposition, even though they are ideologically on the far wings of their respective parties. Kucinich is unlikely to vote for any defense spending, no matter which party crafted the bill, but he takes any number of idiosyncratic stands against his own party. Ron Paul is unlikely to vote for any exercise of federal government power, and he doesn’t care if it is the Republicans who are pushing that power.
In the House, these tendencies mean next to nothing. But the Senate works by unanimous consent. And a Senator Kucinich or a Senator Ron Paul (using the same strategies) would be the least likely members to grant their consent. If Rand Paul is like his father, he’d probably become the most obstructive senator in the history of that body. A single senator, by repeatedly refusing to grant their consent to proceed to the next order of business, can dramatically reduce how much work gets done in the Senate in any given year. When a senator refuses their consent, it takes sixty votes to override their objection, and it takes a couple of days before the Senate is allowed to vote for the override. This is what is colloquially referred to as a Hold (which need not be secret). When a senator objects to a nomination, for example, they signal this by telling the Majority Leader that they will refuse to give their consent for a vote on their confirmation. The reason this so often results in killing off a nomination is that it costs a couple of valuable legislative days to overcome their objection, and with dozens of nominees, only the most urgent are worth the effort.
If Rand Paul is anything like his father, his antics would bedevil the Republicans (when they are in power) as often as they would bedevil the Democrats. But, either way, the hassle would not be worth the satisfaction of getting a few cross-over votes.
You are right.
Rand Paul in the Senate conceivably could make Jesse Helms look agreeable by contrast.
Can you explain this? I find it ludicrous.
Sure, I can.
Remember that the major assumption here is that Rand is a carbon-copy of his father. That is Bowers’s assumption and I am working with it in this analysis, even though it might not be a valid assumption.
If we were to go look at every vote Ron Paul cast against the Republicans while they were in power and we were to assume that rather than just passing an inconsequential protest vote, he instead placed a hold that delayed a vote on that legislation for more than two full legislative days, we’d have a clue about how disruptive Ron Paul could be as a senator.
The closest thing we have to that is Tom Coburn, who placed so may holds in the last Congress, that Harry Reid put together a (T)omnibus Bill to deal with all his holds at once at the beginning of this Congress.
Now you’re really wading into the weeds talking about holds. I was referring to a broader analysis of why the Pauls (assuming as you do they will be substantially similar) are so far-right they will make Helms look moderate.
As far as holds go–why didn’t Reid honor the Dodd’s hold on the FISA legislation last year? Anyone? I guess holds only work if Republicans do it?
Holds may be another cheap trick that give these Bought-and-Paid-For-Senate-Whores an excuse to do the bidding of their corporate and military masters.
I would welcome a break from the typical senate rules–they only seem to benefit the powerful owners of the Senate.
Another Paul would be a huge improvement over many Democratic senators.
He didn’t say that Rand Paul would make Helms look ‘moderate’, he said he would make Helms looks ‘agreeable.’ Helms was known for his obstruction (most famously of paying UN dues).
Reid didn’t honor Dodd’s Hold because the legislation was important enough to him to invest a couple of legislative days to overcome his Hold. That is rarely the case in practice.
As for Paul being an improvement, I highly doubt it. But if he refrained from using Coburnesque obstruction, he’d have a chance of being okay.
l’m in complete agreement with you on this one.
bowers appears to subscribe to the concept that the enemy of my enemy is my friend…which as you point out, isn’t terribly accurate, nor wise. the senate’s already dysfunctional, and paul would be an unmitigated disaster.
an aside: “rand” is an interesting name…a homage to ayn rand, no doubt.
Anyone that wants to limit American Empire and the cult of militarism in America is an ally of mine. There is no more important issue and the fact that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are probably the most staunch proponents of peace explains why many conservative Democrats go bananas against these two men. The misdirected anger by Democrats toward these two reveals a lot about the Democratic party.
America is responsible for 75% of the weapons in this World and is the biggest warmongering nation on Earth and yet many supposed “liberals” reserve a special anger for one of the few people in our government actually trying to do something about it.
Amazing and sickening at the same time.
I know there are many on here that really wish to make libertarians out to be racist far-right radicals.
This is extremely sloppy thinking. It’s really dishonest to label libertarians, and especially Paul, “far right”.
Methinks centrist Democrats don’t like the politics of some liberals joining forces with libertarians so they will employ all sort of dishonest stereotype.
Ron Paul is a fringe Republican. It isn’t necessary to place him on the far right of some linear measure, like a ruler, to notice that his voting pattern is highly idiosyncratic and not part of even a small bloc of like-minded representatives.
Both Kucinich and Paul are fairly non-partisan. That is how they are similar–they are not afraid to buck their parties. Like George Washington advocated, they seem to be less concerned with advancing the interests of their respective parties than they are in advancing their policy goals (but both are definitely party players to a certain extent–they have not yet left their parties).
Kucinich is definitely to the “far-left” of American politics. And I would put Paul, like many libertarians, in a unique position–but Paul and libertarians are certainly not far-right authoritarians.
It would be an interesting post to analyze where libertarians fit in American politics these days but the knee-jerk Democratic partisan response to the Pauls is not very enlightening.
Libertarians didn’t get the tag “Republicans who smoke dope” for nothing
Yeah. That is probably true of many self-professed libertarians;there are quite a few that are really just more socially liberal Republicans.
But it is a distinct political ideology and I find it intellectually lazy to charactize all libertarians of basically being frauds. Democrats are just as capable of mindlessly adopting some political ideology that isn’t consistant with their professed beliefs. In fact, I appreciate people that do not follow the herd–as people that adopt either a R or D label. I bet most libertarians have thought more about politics and why they believe what they believe than most people that simply pick a team because their tribe is mostly that team.
In fact, I believe the Republicans have used libertarians for years. Republicans preached what libertarians wanted to hear while they set out to enact a different agenda (very similar to what some liberals feel Obama is doing).
Ron Paul, and many other libertarians, became fed up with the Republicans and now, more so than ever, I think libertarians are stuck in no mans land.
Like I noted in other comments, I just see a lot of lazy thinking like your quote above demonstrates. I think there is a longer essay on libertarianism and some interesting things to analyze about them in the current political climate but I have no interest in partisan Dem mockery of libertarians–it’s all heat and no light.
BtW- you are being overly defensive if you thought I was mocking libertarians. I was pointing out that Ron Paul would be an obstructive nightmare as a senator. Nothing more. It’s not mockery of his ideology.
I know. You have not seemed as hostile to libertarians as other Democrats/bloggers have. I know you are capable of analyzing their ideology on its own merits.
I do, however, take issue with your willingness to attack the personalities of these people like Kucinich and Paul. I believe you earnestly believe their appraoch is not politically smart (or somehting that merits mocking) but in my mind you are taking the bait from their enemies and putting them through a ringer that you would never do for other mainstream politicians.
There is a reason the conventional wisdom of Washington mocks these guys and its not because their personalities merit special mocking. It’s propoganda.
You’re right that I don’t take either one of them seriously. What you probably miss is that I take them on precisely because I think they both are phonies who do a disservice to the just causes they both occasionally trumpet in their lonely fashion.
I don’t disagree with most of what Al Sharpton has to say, but I sure as hell don’t want him hogging up all the space for black voices in this country’s dialogue. Same principle.
It is inevitable that any politician that espouses a liberal point of view will be tarred as an bomb throwing extremist.
Can you point to any lefty liberal politician that gets the strategy right and says things in a way that doesn’t offend the Villagers?
I think you’re waiting for something that will never happen. They right and the GOP and the media will NEVER agree that liberal views are reasonable. They will always mock them and discredit them and you only further that agenda when you take the bait.
It’s a convenient excuse to discredit liberal views and politicians.
Some imperfect examples of politicians (versus pundits and activists):
Russ Feingold on civil liberties
Barney Frank on pretty much anything
Teddy Kennedy on education and health care (and, he wasn’t cast as a loon by the media, despite constant effort)
Al Gore on energy and environment
Where it gets really hard is on national defense and security. Take those on directly, and you’re not going to get to lead on those policies.
To give a present-day counterexample, Russ Feingold is now ranked as one of the more conservative members of Congress because he consistently votes with McCain on amendments to strip out earmarks. But Feingold has company. Claire McCaskill has been joining him on nearly every one of those votes, as has Bayh, and sometimes Carper. Sen. Graham tends to join with McCain, too, when the rest of the GOP does not.
So, together, they have a least a little rump. Ron Paul flies alone.
I should have said, one of the more conservative Democrats in the Senate. He ranks 56th most progressive in this Congress.
Right. That’s why I wouldn’t use some scorecard to analyze and “rank” these people. That’s why people like you are (usually) far more capable of putting a particular politician on the appropriate area of the political spectrum. We can’t just put votes into a machine and have them spit out where on the spectrum they fit–it requires analysis.
I know there are odd wrinkles in the voting. Like Feingold voting against his FISA bill because it became co-opted and weak.
And I’m also capable of analyzing votes like Kucinich’s vote about Rep. Grayson–I actually agreed with that vote but many Dems would (erroneously) characterize that as idiosyncratic (maybe an example of what you meant by idiosyncratic in your post?) and going against the Democratic party. To me that was a consistent vote for liberal values.
We’ve argued about this before and I don’t think we really disagree about the difficulty of characterizing Ron Paul’s place on the ideological continuum. If we could agree that his positions are idiosyncratic and far out of the mainstream, then that would do a lot to avoid us having to rehash this argument. And, if he and Kucinich are right about opposing our empire, that doesn’t make them any less fringey.
Well, “far-right” is an epithet meant to discredit him to your mostly-Democratic audience.
So “fringe” is closer to an accurate description. But really, their views are not really the fringe of the American people. In fact, one could argue that they are closer to the American people than a lot of mainstream politicians–like the real far-right politicians that has taken over the Republican party. How many support ending social security, banning abortion, tax cuts for the rich, and endless war? Is Kucinich really even more outside the pale than these guys?
Most Americans want to leave Iraq and Af-Pak like Paul and Kucinich advocate. Why is this fringe? Why are they about the only pols that are courageous enough to fight for the American people on this issue?
They are fringe because they do not play the two-party game the same way other pols and the media want them to. For that they deserve immense respect–not scorn.
I really do find it to be very revealing that so many professed-liberals really, really, hate Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. I’m not buying this excuse that Dems agree with their goals but just don’t like their tactics.
I just think they’re phonies. I could go into detail, but that really is the bottom line. You can go a long way in this country by adopting a fairly popular cause that is marginalized in our politics, and then becoming the champion of a passionate subgroup. But, it matters a lot whether you are for real, or you are John Edwards.
But deciding what politicians are phonies and which are real is a fools’ game. They are all phonies to a certain extent. They all have big egos.
What’s more important is that the citizens demand more transparency and hold politicians accountable for their actions. Looking into a politicians soul and just trusting in him (especially when his actions run counter to his words) is the real phony behavior.
On this category Ron Paul and Kucinich are much more real than say, Obama. Obama uses his rhetoric to deceive and be something to all people whereas I have a pretty good idea where Kucinich and Paul stand on certain policy issues and they have consistently followed through on what they say they believe in.
Anyway, we spend way too much time analyzing the personality traits of politicians.
It’s a mugs game currently designed to foil liberals. Liberal politicians get much harsher treatment than conservative politicians. Look at Blogovich for e.g. Everyone heaped scorn on him. He was persona non grata in the Village. Meanwhile Ted Stevens, an actual felon convicted of the same thing Blogovich was only accused of, as well as Tom Delay, get to go around in polite company and are still Villagers in good standing. Even Obama gave Stevens more respect than Blogovich—I know, I know, you have an excuse all lined up why this disparate treatment was tactically necessary in this particular instance, etc., and I don’t want to argue about Blogovich–it’s just an example of the disparate treatment. But this is always the end result–conservatives get a pass and liberals get mockery.
I’m just asking that you apply an intellectually consistent standard to all pols. If you are going to rail against Kucinich and Sharpton being phonies then you should apply the same analysis to Obama and the other mainstream phonies.
Well, I don’t think Obama is a phony.
More importantly, why don’t you leave off this tangent of yours and address my point in this piece. If you care about federal regulation of Wall Street, federal education, federal health policy, federal retirement security, etc., how the hell would it benefit us to have a Paulist libertarian in the Senate putting a Hold on everything?
You’re off on national defense policy. What about the rest of it?
If you want regulation of Wall Street and robust health care reform I don’t think a hypothetical hold by a hypothetical libertarian Senator is the biggest problem.
I would worry more about the phony words coming from Obama on these issues and the fact his actions are totally contrary to his words. Democrats would spend their time more wisely if they hold Obama accountable rather than making excuses for him and running interference for him by blaming Republicans and now libertarians, I guess. Libertarians, btw, that share some of the goals with liberals (whereas the GOP shares almost zero of the goals with liberals yet Obama is empowering them and working with them).
Where’s Obama’s leadership on regulating Wall Street? Is this Rand Paul’s fault? Or is this yet another in a whole litany of excuses for the non-phony Obama?
Now you are just annoying me.
Was LBJ “really there” on the Great Society, or was he just being a phony? Or FDR, for that matter. Does “phoney” mean you think Kucinich would end up voting against Medicare for all if it had a chance to pass? You seem to be the one who demands some kind of personal “purity” as defined by you, while at the same time mocking the “marginalized” for tilting at windmills.
Edwards is an interesting case. His personal life turned out to be repulsive even by politician/celebrity standards, but I think he would have been a pretty good president when it comes to policy and I don’t care if he’s “real”. Your position seems profoundly conservative to me, in that you automatically dismiss anyone on the “fringe”, even though that’s where the ideas and momentum for real change come from.
Ron Paul on the issues – some history on his votes and opinions. Of course it remains to be seen if Paul the younger would behave in a similar manner once installed in the Village sausage grinder.
If Senators Paul, Kucinich, and Nader is what it would take to move the Senate out of its robotic dance of deference, maybe that’s exactly what we need. It’s strange to watch liberals defend the baroque machinations that define Senate procedure and that impose a huge built-in bias against substantive change. If Senators Paul and Kucinich cause the “world’s greatest deliberative body” to rush screaming into the 21st Century (or even the 20th), so much the better.
As to Ron Paul, I can’t admire him despite my libertarian streak. For one thing, he’s just strikingly dumb. I’ve watched a lot of interviews, press conferences, and speeches, and he’s just incapable of presenting a coherent worldview to give context to his policies. He also strikes me as hypocritical, or at least highly selective on where his principles apply: How does a real libertarian crusade to use the police power of the state to deny women the right to decide what’s best for their own lives?
Anyway, the issue isn’t really about Paul, it’s about Bowers’s habit of trying to game the polls even when they’re meaningless. Rand Paul’s standing now has nothing to do with what will happen after a campaign is underway. Overall “vote scores” are just as meaningless. If Rand is like his daddy he’d probably have voted aginst FISA, the Patriot Act, the Iraq invasion, and for Net neutrality and radical campaign reform, among other issues. He’d also likely vote against all extensions of the safety net and redistributive economic policy, and for dismantling every part of the safety net entirely.
Lefty Dems would do better to get good populist lefties nominated and supported than trying to play at gaming the GOP primaries. It’s way past time for Dems to wake up and recognize that real small-l libertarian principles are a natural partner of leftist economics, and not the exclusive property Ron Paul and Grover Norquist.
I think the most annoying part with Paul is his supporters, not to mention his own hypocrisy. He puts a whole bunch of things for his district in a bill, and votes against it claiming to be against earmarks. It’s just a cop-out for another politician who is full of shit.
However, if it came down to the partisan lines that we’re seeing, with no Republican crossing over, I would rather have Libertarians in office than Republicans. Moreover, I would still rather have a moderate Democrat than a libertarian….depending on that Democrat. Ron Paul or Mike Ross? Ron Paul 10000x over. However, that’s the House.
This is the Senate, where your party’s leadership is much more of a factor than your own interests.
I like when people buck leadership occasionally, but voting against the Cap and Trade legislation because it’s not perfect is absolutely worthless. I love Kucinich, however.
I cannot stand Ron Paul. His mockery of science, hypocrisy on earmarks, hypocrisy on women’s choice, and bullshit crackpot economics are just as disgusting as any bought out corporate Democratic whore. The only area I can slightly sympathize with is foreign policy, but even then, he essentially wants isolationism mixed with trade. “If you want to massacre your own civilians, that’s not our problem.” Sorry, I can’t lay party to that anymore than America’s own hegemony.
I also don’t think Libertarians have thought about politics more than any other group. I think it’s an appealing ideology to kids who don’t want to answer to anyone, just as communism is an appealing ideology to hippies who just want to share.