I think I’ve made it clear over the last few years that I am a fan of Rand Paul’s. (I also happen to like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker and a few other GOP Presidential candidates.) I think that of all of our candidates, Rand Paul does the best in attempting to pass everything through a “Constitution filter” before voting on it in Congress. I know that that means he becomes unpopular in Washington and sometimes even with grassroots conservatives who disagree with his foreign policy positions. He has remained “honest” enough that he has been willing to sacrifice some of that support to accomplish his legislative goals.
What I cannot understand is how the GOP establishment can work so actively against him that they seem to prefer allowing Hillary Clinton to win over nominating Rand Paul.
What do I mean?
Have you seen the latest polling data from the battleground states? These purple states are must wins for either candidate, and Rand Paul is the candidate doing the best against Clinton in the majority of these contests.
In Colorado: Paul leads Clinton 44 -41
In Iowa: Paul leads Clinton 43 – 42
In Ohio: Besides John Kasich (Ohio’s Governor), Paul is the only candidate beating Clinton in the polls. Paul leads Clinton in Ohio 44 – 41
In Ohio: Again, only Kasich and Paul run with or better than Clinton. Paul and Clinton are tied in this poll 43 – 43.
In Pennsylvania: Paul leads Clinton 45 – 44.
In North Carolina: Only Rand Paul and Scott Walker run even with Clinton in North Carolina. Paul and Clinton are tied at 44 – 44.
Folks, that’s North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania! With wins in those five states plus the regular slate of Red States… Rand Paul would handily defeat Hillary Clinton! Yet, if you turn the dial to any major news source on any particular afternoon, what you’ll hear are GOP operatives lambasting Senator Paul as if he is some kind of “Loony Liberal.” Senator Paul’s voting record tells a far different story, however, as the Heritage Foundation (which keeps track of all of our national legislature’s votes) tells us. Retracing their congressional votes, Senator Paul is consistently one of the two or three most conservative candidates for President (along with Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio).
So what is the problem?
I think its money. Senator Paul’s foreign policy stance means less money in the pockets of lobbyists, which means less money in the pockets of politicians. Senator Paul would cut as much foreign funding as he possibly could, which would mean the overseas donors would dry up rather drastically, and the money spigot in Washington, D.C. would dry up right along with it.
Yes, I also believe that Paul’s other foreign policy positions also play a role in the attacks he faces from other Republicans – particularly John McCain and Lindsey Graham – but I think politics plays a far smaller role than we realize.
Many of you will still be opposed to Rand Paul as the GOP candidate. I understand this and I understand why. What I would ask is that you not be swayed by liberal and moderate naysayers on the Sunday morning talk show circuit. Rand Paul is a consistent conservative and would make a far better President than Hillary Clinton (and the liberal GOP candidates too).
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com