Rand Paul at congressional hearing: Let me drop an Ayn Rand truth bomb on you

posted at 9:00 pm on April 12, 2011 by Allahpundit

Not as colorful as last month’s soliloquy on toilets, but still guaranteed to inspire high fives among libertarian C-SPAN junkies everywhere. Enjoy this, because his next big speech in the Senate is likely to be more controversial: He told Sean Hannity this afternoon that he might filibuster Boehner’s budget bill on Thursday when it comes up for a vote, and by “filibuster” I think he’s referring to the old-fashioned talk-til-you-drop version. He surely won’t have 41 votes to block the deal, assuming it even reaches the Senate, so the goal would simply be to register tea party protest of the package by dragging the proceedings out for several hours as the shutdown clock ticks down before relenting. Good retail politics, especially given growing grassroots dissatisfaction with the deal, but the real action will be in the House.

Exit question: Why don’t the RINOs in Congress ever use lessons from their own favorite books? Coming soon, perhaps: Scott Brown reads from “The Giving Tree.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I like Rand. Not a big fan of his father. Rand is smart, intelligent, seems to have a real grasp of the problems our country faces, and comes across genuine and sincere.

I could vote for Rand, if he ran. It would be harder to pull the lever for his father though.

BruthaMan on April 12, 2011 at 9:09 PM

I’m no fan of either Rand or Ron but if I had to choose, I like Rand Paul.

He’s much better than his father but the apple still falls near the tree. The son is, in many ways, as nutty as his father. Rand Paul is just better at expressing those views than his dad.

Both Ron and Rand Paul are isolationist in their thinking. It’s an off-shoot of Libertarianism that says “It’s none of our business what people in other countries do, unless they directly threaten us.”

As a result, I believe both Paul’s think the military budget could be greatly reduced to support a primarily defensive posture.

Because a lot of Republicans are hawkish interventionists who are inclined to view our national interests broadly (even if they stop short of favoring open-ended nation building missions), Paul’s isolationism may not sit well with Republicans as a whole.

He’s a mixed bag. But a very interesting mix.

SwampYankee on April 12, 2011 at 9:39 PM

I agree. I am one of those Republicans in which both Rand and Ron Paul’s isolationist/non-interventionist position does not sit well with me.

When it comes to foreign policy, both of them are just dead wrong on isolationism/non-interventionism.

Conservative Samizdat on April 13, 2011 at 1:14 PM