Here.
(Admittedly, the line about how “the percentage of our federal budget spent on national defense would increase” could be misleading, since just about any minarchist wants to increase the percentage spent on defense – namely, by merely slashing defense spending drastically, while eliminating most other spending. But the line about “robust funding,” and his support for the Afghanistan adventure, don’t support a charitable interpretation.)
“They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I’m not a libertarian.”
-Rand Paul
Hopefully the general election forces him a bit left. But after the Maddow trainwreck I don’t see him going anywhere.
Shame, too. The guy could have become the most libertarian US senator without too much difficulty.
I think he’ll still be the most Libertarian Senator.
He’s said in some of his speeches that he’d like to cut the Federal government by 90%. So Military spending would be drastically reduced too even though it would then be the main thing the government does.
Regarding Afghanistan he’s said in the past that if he can’t get an official declaration of war in Afghanistan when he gets to the Senate, he’d want the troops home too.
He’s openly opposed the Patriot Act.
The Rachel Maddow “Trainwreck” as you call it, might actually help him in KY. Pretty much all the local talk shows and radio are saying it’s just bating. Even many of his opponents are upset by Conways campaign “tactics.”
Tracy
He’s openly opposed the Patriot Act.
Source? I could settle for a republican Russ Feingold.
It’s right on his website.
http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h-p/privacy-liberty/
Whether it’s passing the 315 page Patriot Act without a single member of Congress ever reading the bill, proposing a National ID Card, establishing FISA courts and utilizing warrantless searches, or betraying the medical privacy of ordinary citizens, the Federal Government has overstepped its limited powers as stipulated in the Constitution.