Thank you for your kind words.
I believe that Rand Paul is sound on abortion. On that issue, the real question is HOW Roe vs. Wade will be overturned. SCOTUS might take the easy path and return the question to the states respectively which would restore the LEGAL status quo ante by again ALLOWING the states to individually prohibit abortion. Fifteen or twenty states would then act promptly to outlaw most (realistically) abortions but that obviously does not restore the CIVILIZATIONAL status quo ante circa 1972. The pro-life cause has sustained the damage of Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton (think twin Pearl Harbors) and their evil spawn of subsequent decisions and also there have been about 55 million surgical abortions and therefore many millions of women (and all too often the men who fathered their slaughtered babies) who have an emotional investment in the status quo of the present. Sending the matter back to the states can be easily justified under the Tenth Amendment. Argument: Neither Congress nor the executive nor the federal courts are specifically empowered by the Constitution to legalize or prohibit or regulate abortion and therefore it is a matter for the states and the people respectively. Herod Blackmun is dead. Sandra Day O'Connor is retired. Breyer is not a warrior for abortion although he may favor it being legal and probably does not want to keep refighting the war. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito appear to be rock solid. Maybe Kennedy would be inclined to kick it back to the states.
Far better would be a personhood decision recognizing the unborn as persons from conception and protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan will NEVER vote for personhood. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito MIGHT vote for personhood. Kennedy may decide that issue. After 2016, wit the right POTUS, Breyer may retire and Ginzberg may be dead (at least one bout of uterine cancer already and she is now a widow. It would not be our first death watch over SCOTUS in 40 years of this barbarism.
On other issues, I tend to agree with your post. I suspect that Rand Paul would opt for a Tenth Amendment approach to the matter of "gay""marriage" but might well also allow the states to ignore one another and rely on the Tenth Amendment as a later enactment to trump the "full faith and credit" clause of the original constitution.
That would allow Rand Paul the room to really open up on the fiscal issues, the deficit, taxes, downsizing the rampaging Leviathan that the fedgov has become, defunding much of the insanity, slashing away wholesale at regulations. Done well, his first thousand days might exceed those of Ronaldus Maximus. Doing it well means really connecting with constituencies not normally Republican: the libertarian young, foreign and military skeptics (not too rigidly and hopefully backed by old Reagan hands like Frank Gaffney), Blacks, Latinos (both groups on social conservatism and an aggressive policy to topple the status quo welfare state in favor of an opportunity society that includes the ambitious and honorable poor, industrial restoration, populist and anti-elitist tone overall with plenty of well-chosen but aggressive rhetoric. Putting the hay down where we goats can get it, as George Wallace used to say.
Rand Paul's attack on Hillary and her tired and dishonest, victim card playing, insults to human intelligence on Benghazi and her manifest and humiliating failures and Obozos, was magnificent, and his tone was just about perfect and what the public is looking for. Her answers were as bad as her failures to protect the embassy personnel. Bravissimo! Senator Paul.
I have no idea of what America for Action may be. I almost hesitate to ask but tell me anyhow! Is this the Obozo campaign organization preserved and funded (tax exempt no less) to push public policy? If not, what is it?
So far, it looks like he may be able to unite libertarians who followed his father, conservatives who resisted his father and many other constituencies. I don't know what his solution for Israel may be. I do believe that he would refuse all of the following: to attempt to push Israel around, to try to force a peace agreement down Israel's throat, to care at all what the anti-American poobahs of the United Nations may want, to prohibit Israeli purchases of American weapons systems with Israel's own money or have a civilized lunch with Israeli Prime Ministers who wish to visit. He also would probably not object to Israel acting on its own behalf to stop Iran from achieving nuclear weapons which is a very good side of non-interventionist policy. I am an interventionist but I believe that Senator Paul can probably be trusted unlike his father.
Resistance! God bless you and yours!
I occasionally like to say that leaders lead and fighters fight.
During the first year of O’s regime, when the GOP politicians were so completely demoralized that they wanted only to prove to O how bipartisan they could be, the number of politicals who were prepared to fight back could be counted on one hand. They were people like Bachmann, DeMint, Palin (though she was out of office), and a few talking heads in the media. Romney was not among them as I remember pointing out again and again. He was busy laying low and preparing his position papers for his eventual campaign.
Though from a practical point of view his behavior made sense, it also meant that he was AWOL during the fight of the century as O steamrolled his way through. Though I eventually voted for him, I pointed out repeatedly that such a man was neither leader nor fighter, or else he would be leading and fighting.
Now that O is secure for another 4 years, he is going to be more confident than ever in his ability to steamroll his opponents. The GOP is looking for a way to surrender on just about everything. This is the moment for a leader to emerge, and the only one I see standing up is Rand. He’s not perfect, but he fights.
So he has my attention. Palin is still out there doing what she does best, and there are a couple of others who are also fearless. Our next president should be chosen from among our natural leaders and fighters. We should not simply accept some guy who thinks its his turn. Romney had no problem taking down his GOP rivals but he did not know how to deal with O and his communists. Rand, like Palin, seems to be fearless. We’ve got a long way to go to 2016, but we should be lining up behind our fighters.
At some point Rand is going to get the Palin treatment, the Bork and Judge Thomas treatment, and many of us will want to run for the doors. We have to expect it and be prepared to deal with it.