Issues with Rand Paul

Strong pro Israel message here

Rand Paul backpedals, but the embarrassment continues Posted: 08 Apr 2015 09:26 AM PDT (Paul Mirengoff) Yesterday, in announcing his run for the presidency, Rand Paul demonstrated his unfitness for the office by calling for the repeal of any law that “disproportionately incarcerates people of color.” In effect, as John and I pointed out, Paul thereby called for the repeal of virtually every criminal law. Paul’s team has now “clarified” his statement. The campaign told Byron York that the Senator’s words were misunderstood: “Sen. Paul was referring to nonviolent crimes,” campaign spokeswoman Eleanor May told me via email, adding that the passage in question was “a reference to his criminal justice reforms.” But Paul said he wanted to repeal “any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color,” (emphasis added) not just laws pertaining to nonviolent crimes. He may have misspoken, but his words weren’t misunderstood. Attempting to support her assertion, Paul’s spokeswoman sent Byron brief descriptions of five bills Paul is sponsoring that deal with the criminal justice system and relate to non-violent crimes. None pertains to repealing criminal laws. Thus, they do not shed light on the scope of Paul’s call for repealing all criminal laws that disproportionately affect “people of color.” It’s difficult to see how Paul could have had these bills in mind when he called for repealing criminal laws. It’s not far-fetched, though, to believe that Paul doesn’t want to repeal laws against murder and rape, for example — a position that would put him to the left of Al Sharpton. More likely, the Senator chose his words incredibly poorly, which hardly recommends him to be the GOP standard bearer in 2016. Even with the clarification, Paul’s position remains inane and dangerous. Why should non-violent acts that now constitute crimes be legalized just because a particular group doesn’t obey the current prohibition? No criminal law should be subject, in effect, to a “criminals of color veto.” Paul seems to believe that non-violent crimes are no big deal. This is rubbish. The line between violent and non-violent crimes is not totally clear. However, non-violent crimes are generally thought to include: Manufacturing or selling heroin Stalking Driving without a licence or with a suspended license Driving under the influence of alcohol Reckless driving and driving after the police signals you to stop Second and third degree burglary Arson Larceny Credit theft and illegal use of credit cards Identity theft Forgery Enticing a minor or using one in an obscene performance Possessing an unauthorized weapon on school property Overstaying a visa or otherwise being in the U.S. illegally I see no basis for repealing any of these prohibitions. But if there’s a case to be made, it shouldn’t be based on race. Even with his backpedaling, Rand Paul is calling for a race-based criminal justice code. This should disqualify him from the GOP nomination.

Rand Paul’s Israel Problem Summed Up in One Telling Gif

Mar 3, 2015 3:05 PM CST

The Kentucky Senator's unenthusiastic clapping for Netanyahu would seem to confirm the right’s skepticism of his support for Israel.

  

          

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is learning the hard way that sometimes it’s not enough to just show up.
At least 50 House and Senate Democrats boycotted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress, but several right-leaning news sites and pundits were more focused on Paul’s lukewarm reaction to Bibi. The problem for Paul was that he looked very much like a man who didn't want to be at the speech, and the larger perception is that Paul was trying to split the difference between wanting to reach a deal with Iran (the opposite goal of the speech) and not wanting to seem like he doesn’t support Israel.
That dynamic was summed up neatly in gif form: 

“Rand’s conservatarian straddle in one GIF: ‘What if I clap, but only half-heartedly?’”

Allahpundit

“Rand’s conservatarian straddle in one GIF: ‘What if I clap, but only half-heartedly?’” tweeted Allahpundit, a writer at the conservative website HotAir, referring to Paul's need to balance conservatism and libertarianism. Red State’s Dan McLaughlin called it the “Citizen Kane clap.” The National Review posted a short reaction story on the gif and the right’s negative social media response. The post argued that he was “less-than-enthused” due to “his outspoken views against foreign aid and a muscular foreign policy.” 
Paul’s foreign aid stance came up last fall when he was asked if he’d ever proposed cutting aid to Israel. Paul said he hadn’t, but in 2011 he proposed a bill that would end all foreign aid, including Israel, according to Politifact. His father, former congressman Ron Paul, also opposed giving foreign aid. Three months later, Paul faced criticism for missing a Netanyahu speech (he said he stayed on the Senate floor to prevent Democrats from advancing the Patriot Act unanimously). 
Through all of this, Paul’s response has been that Israel is a close friend and ally that has his support. After the speech, the senator released the following statement:

“Israel is and has always been America’s friend and ally. I was pleased to hear Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to Congress today, and join him in calling for peace and standing together for out mutual interests. It is important to work together to prevent a nuclear Iran, and the spread of Radical Islam.” 

But despite his vocal support for Israel, Paul may not be able to convince the right that he’s more enthusiastic about Israel than that gif implies. As Daniel Larison at The American Conservative wrote in January, “I know that Paul thinks he can thread the needle of placating ‘pro-Israel’ hawks without antagonizing the core supporters he expects to have in 2016, but I suspect that he is wrong about this. He will never be able to satisfy the ‘pro-Israel’ hawks, since they decided long ago that he was not one of them.”