Mediaboss Marketing

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is taking a lot of friendly fire from libertarians.

The big issue is Paul's vote to confirm Jeff Sessions as attorney general. "[H]ow does a drug war and mass incarceration critic vote for the Senate's most strident supporter of both to run the DOJ?" asked The Washington Post's libertarian scribe Radley Balko.

Complicating things: While the Kentucky senator seemed to bend on Sessions, he was gearing up to oppose the hawkish Elliott Abrams if he was nominated for deputy secretary of state, just as Paul promised to do whatever it took to block Bush-era hawk John Bolton from either of the top two State Department jobs. (The Abrams point is now moot, as President Trump has personally nixed his nomination.)

But I must say: I think Paul's priorities here are correct.

The libertarian case against Sessions, characteristically well made by Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), is that he is bad on civil asset forfeiture, bad on drug policy, and a throwback to law-and-order Republicanism after several years of conservatives warming to criminal justice reform.

Libertarians believe America is locking too many people up and police power is prone to abuse. While Sessions' views on these subjects have often been caricatured by the left, it is fair to say he is not on the same page as libertarians. And indeed, if Paul had voted against Sessions on the basis of any of this, it certainly would have been defensible.

But no matter who became attorney general, the Trump administration is obviously going to be bad, from a libertarian perspective, on these issues. The president's impulses on dealing with "bad hombres" are not remotely civil libertarian. President Trump was inevitably going to get an attorney general who reflected his views on these issues, and he could have gotten one much less competent and personally decent than Sessions. From a libertarian perspective, Sessions is bad but it could have been much worse. Sen. Paul understood this.

What is still very much up in the air is what kind of foreign policy we are going to get from the Trump administration. Trump's impulses are often sensible. He understands that the wars of the past 16 years have not achieved their desired objectives despite their considerable cost in blood and treasure.

"One of the things I like most about President Trump is his acknowledgement that nation building does not work and actually works against the nation building we need to do here at home," Paul wrote. "With a $20 trillion debt, we don't have the money to do both."

But obviously, our new president represents some danger abroad, too. Trump temperamentally does not like to back down from fights. And a lot of his advisers are hawkish. It's an open question what his foreign policy will look like.

In that sense, the advice Trump gets on foreign policy can make a big difference. And right now, we are counting on a defense secretary nicknamed "Mad Dog" to be a major voice of restraint.

Abrams is a leading neoconservative, a proponent of the foreign policy Trump rejected when he called the Iraq War a disaster on the eve of winning the South Carolina primary and ending Jeb Bush's presidential campaign. Bolton is no neocon, properly understood. He rejects democracy promotion and other more idealistic parts of the neoconservative vision. But he embraces too low a threshold for the use of military force.

Trump is going to be a law-and-order president. (It's also worth noting that conservative support for criminal justice reform is dependent on relatively low crime rates that were not entirely secured by libertarian means.) But Trump doesn't have to be a hawkish president. Paul understands this, and is picking his spots to oppose and prod Trump accordingly.

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Paul has more practical ability to stall or even circumvent nominees who would try to make the Trump foreign policy George W. Bush 2.0. But if Paul had voted against Sessions, the Alabama Republican would still have been confirmed. Paul would just have been the sole Republican on the side of Democrats who tried to assassinate Sessions' character.

Many libertarians don't like Paul's collegiality with more statist Republicans. But if you are going to work within the Republican Party, sometimes you've got to, well, work within the Republican Party.

Immigration and foreign policy realism are two good things we might get out of a Trump administration. On civil liberties, the new president will sadly not be an improvement over other post-9/11 administrations. That's something we all have to accept.

But anything Paul can do to keep the foreign policy voices surrounding Trump from simply being a cacophony of hawks is constructive and the smart way to focus his energy.

Read the original post:
Rand Paul has a plan to influence the Trump administration. And it's working. - The Week Magazine

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a libertarian-leaning Republican who has clashed with newly confirmed Attorney General Jeff Sessions on drug policy and criminal justice reform, said in an interview that Democrats secured his vote for Sessions by attacking the longtime Alabama senators record on race.

In some ways, the Democrats made it much more certain that I would vote for him by trying to destroy his character, Paul said Thursday in an interview with The Washington Post and Roll Call for C-SPANs Newsmakers series. I think its very upsetting that they didnt choose to go after him on particular issues, like civil asset forfeiture, where they might have been able to persuade someone. They chose to go after a mans character.

[Amid deep partisan rancor, Senate confirms Sessions for attorney general]

Paul, who won a second six-year term in November and was one of the 16 candidates Trump defeated in the Republican primaries broke with many Republicans in his support for drug decriminalization and criminal justice reform. In the Obama years, when the Justice Department allowed states such as Colorado to legalize marijuana, Sessions opposed it; Paul supported it.

In the interview, Paul acknowledged that some libertarian goals might be stymied by a Trump administration. There still will have to be a lot of standing up and saying there is a right to privacy, Paul said. This was a vote where I ended up voting for someone who was a colleague, who I knew.

Paul did not know Mike Pompeo, the Kansas congressman who became Trumps CIA director. He didnt vote for Pompeo. He had also pledged to oppose neoconservative nominees such as John Bolton, which, given Pauls perch on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, meant that they would likely be voted out without a recommendation.

But for libertarians outside the Senate, Pauls vote for Sessions has been a source of frustration and confusion, despite a Facebook post in which Paul tried to explain the vote.

On Thursday, Matt Welch, the former editor in chief of Reason magazine,* cited Paul strategist Doug Stafford for a possible explanation of the vote. When Paul opposed Loretta E. Lynch for attorney general, there was hope that her views on asset forfeiture and other areas of concern conflicted enough with those of the more reform-friendly Obama that her potential replacement could conceivably be better. With Sessions, there was little hope that a replacement nominee would veer more toward Pauls views.

But in Thursdays conversation, Paul repeatedly emphasized that any discussion of Sessionss views got lost in the Democratic attacks. Sen. Elizabeth Warrens viral, short-circuited speech against Sessions, in which the Democrat from Massachusetts quoted Coretta Scott Kings 1986 letter of opposition to Sessions as a judicial nominee, struck Paul as personal and not based on principle.

The thing is, Ive seen pictures of him marching for voting rights with [congressman] John Lewis, Paul said of Sessions. He is for voting rights. There are things no one wants attached to their character, no person that I know wants to be called racist, or that youre trying to prevent someone to vote.

And Paul hadnt given up hope of influencing the president, as a senator from a state that he won handily. There was a discussion in the White House the other day about civil asset forfeiture, he said. I think civil asset forfeitures a terrible idea. Id like to have that discussion with the president.

That discussion, however, made news of another kind when Trump seemingly with tongue in check promised to go after a Texas state legislator who was campaigning against civil asset forfeiture.

*Disclosure: I worked for Reason from 2006 through 2008.

Continue reading here:
Rand Paul explains vote for Sessions: Democrats alienated him with 'character' attacks - Washington Post

Sen. Rand Paul voted to confirm Jeff Sessions as President Donald Trumps attorney general, but that doesnt mean the Kentucky Republican with libertarian leanings doesnt have real concerns about how Sessions will run the Justice Department.

And he thinks it will be more difficult to make progress on a criminal justice overhaulwith a Trump-Sessions DOJ.

In some ways, the Democrats made it much more certain that I would vote for him, by trying to destroy his character. I think to me its very upsetting that they didnt choose to go after him on particular issues like civil asset forfeiture, where they might have been able to persuade someone like me, Paul said Thursday. They chose to go after him, and try to destroy a mans character.

Speaking during a taping of C-SPANs Newsmakers program set to air on Sunday, Paul expressed concern about privacy issues and efforts to overhaul the criminal justice system under Trump and Sessions.

Its going to be more difficult for criminal justice reform under this president and under this administration, Paul said. But he added that he wished former President Barack Obama had moved to push the ball forward earlier in his White House tenure.

There have been these descriptions of President Obama of being aloof. I think theyre kind of true. This is a sausage-making factory up on the Hill. Youve got to come up and mix it up, the senatorsaid.

President Trump may be more successful because Mike Pence is up here all the time. Hes sort of a creature of Congress, a creature of state government, but he knows the players, Paulsaid.

The Kentucky Republicansaid going forward he has a list of items to discuss with Trump, including government policies toward forfeiture of assets in legal proceedings prior to any sort of conviction.

I think civil asset forfeiture is a terrible idea until youve convicted someone, and Id like to have that discussion with the president. Ive had that discussion with Sen. Sessions, and I think some of the things weve done particularly to poor people poor people in our country deal in cash, Paul said. I think in order to take someones money from them, the government ought to prove it was ill-gotten.

I think there still will be a lot of standing up and saying that there is a right to privacy that he needs to be observing, the senatorsaid duringthe C-SPAN interview with reporters from Roll Call and The Washington Post.

But Paulalso said he agreed with the move to block Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warrenfrom continuing to speak on the Sessions nomination after she read into the record statements from 1986 made against him by Coretta Scott King and former Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, taking the view that Warren had impugned Sessions character.

No person that I know wants to be called racist or insensitive or that youre for trying to prevent people to vote. Paul said. We may disagree exactly on what the law should be, but that is attacking someones motives and character to say that he doesnt want, for some reason, African-American voters to vote, and I dont think its true.

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

View original post here:
Democratic Attacks on Sessions Influenced Rand Paul's Vote - Roll Call

You won't be seeing Sen. Rand Paul, a bottle of fine Kentucky bourbon under his arm, paying a social call on President Donald Trump at the White House anytime soon.

"You know I don't think I'm going to be invited to their Christmas party next year," Paul told me on Wednesday during an interview for "The Chicago Way," my podcast on WGN radio. "But it's sort of been that way from the very beginning."

We talked of Trump and bourbon but also about the Constitution and the need for originalist, conservative justices on the Supreme Court to check the power of this and every other president, something liberals trapped in partisan hysteria seem unable to understand.

But we also talked of Paul's war with the neoconservatives the brains behind the Republican War Party wing that drove us into the Iraq War that broke open this week.

You declared war on the neocons, I said.

"You interpreted that pretty well correctly," the libertarian-leaning Republican from Kentucky said.

Paul, a former candidate for president, has kept Trump at arm's length, supporting Trump's talk of tax cuts and cutting government regulations, but breaking with him loudly this week over reports that the president was considering bringing leading neoconservative Elliott Abrams onto his team as deputy secretary of state.

Abrams worked for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. He was convicted of two counts of "withholding" information from Congress in the Iran-Contra scandal and was pardoned by Bush. The neoconservatives despised Trump for his criticisms of the Iraq War and for their failed "nation building" policy. Many neocons joined the #NeverTrump movement and sought refuge with Hillary Clinton.

Reports of Abrams being considered for a top Trump administration post baffled and angered Paul, and he publicly went nuclear.

"One of Elliott Abrams' statements during the campaign was that the chair that Washington and Lincoln both sat in, Trump was not fit to sit in," Paul said on "The Chicago Way." "He was very anti-Trump, but he was also very anti what Trump was saying. Trump would say the Iraq War was a mistake. Elliott Abrams, (who) was one of the key architects of Iraq, would disagree.

"And I hope (Abrams' appointment) won't happen. But it is somewhat unnerving that he would be considered for a post when he was viscerally and loudly opposed to most of what Trump brought that was a change in regards to foreign policy," Paul said.

What's odd about all this was that at the beginning of the Republican presidential primaries, it was Paul who was condemned by the GOP establishment and neocons as something of a dangerous "isolationist." Democrats aren't the only ones who try to shut down debate about what threatens them by demonizing their opponents with alleged sins. But there is another word for isolationist: noninterventionist.

The American people don't want another war, not in the Middle East, not with Russia, not with anyone. The people aren't crazy about intervening, because they know who bleeds, and it isn't the careerist war architects in Washington. Members of our armed forces are the ones who bleed.

"I've been unafraid to say that we need to have a foreign policy that's constitutional," Paul said, "that separates the powers, that understands that our Founding Fathers said that Congress shall declare war. One of my biggest pet peeves right now is that we're at war in Yemen and nobody's even talking about it.

"So I will support Trump when he's against regulations and when he's for balancing the budget or lower taxes, but when he strays and he's for a foreign policy that endangers or threatens to get us involved in more war in the Middle East, I'll have to oppose him," Paul said.

And so he has.

But there was no way I would spend time talking with Paul and not talk about the Constitution. I had written a recent column about why originalist justices are needed on the Supreme Court to check the political appetites and impulses of a growing Imperial Presidency and that Trump's most vocal critics should understand this. Paul read it and reached out to say he liked it.

"I appreciated the article I believe you wrote talking about how believing in separation of powers should be exactly what (Trump critics are) for, because that means that the executive branch doesn't get to act unilaterally on its own, if you have justices that actually believe in separation of powers," Paul said.

Paul said he doesn't think his criticisms of Abrams represent a total break with Trump.

"I'm a glass-is-half-full kind of guy, so I don't purposely set out to challenge the president of my own party."

So what kind of Kentucky bourbon do you pour into that half-full glass?

"You will get me impeached from office if I chose one bourbon over the other, but I will make sure your listeners know that all bourbon has to come from Kentucky if it wants to be called bourbon. And so we're very proud of our bourbon trade. We welcome people from Chicago to come on down and sample our bourbon."

And you're welcome to come up here and watch Mayor Rahm Emanuel begin to self-destruct.

"That's bad enough from a distance," he said. "I don't think I want to see that from up close."

Listen to "The Chicago Way" podcast with John Kass and WGN's Jeff Carlin here: http://www.wgnradio.com/category/wgn-plus/thechicagoway.

jskass@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @John_Kass

See the rest here:
Sen. Rand Paul's war with the neocons - Chicago Tribune

Rare.us

Rand Paul: It would be a really rotten, no good, bad idea to have ground troops in Syria Rare.us In 2015, I asked, Why is Rand Paul the only Republican who knows our foreign policy is crazy? Among the crazy characteristics is the U.S.'s constant habit of intervening militarily in other nation's civil wars. It was precisely this sort of ...

See the rest here:
Rand Paul: It would be a really rotten, no good, bad idea to have ground troops in Syria - Rare.us