I can answer my own question. All Paul’s strategy does is burnish his moral superiority. He has never swayed the Senate in his direction.
If the purpose of electing a senator is to give them a pedestal upon which to preen, Paul is doing his job to perfection. If it’s so that he/she can actually enact legislation that helps the constituents, Paul is a miserable failure.
“.... a pedestal upon which to preen [or] enact legislation that helps the constituents....”
Straw man. You are presenting a false choice - nobody elects a Senator to preen - we all want honest representation and legislation that protects our rights.
But reasonable people can disagree on whether a “take what you can get” approach to legislation works better than a strictly principled approach.
The GOPe has been trying “take what you can get” with the Rats for decades and have lost ground in every transaction - and muddied the waters to boot. You can’t tell one side from the other because the GOPe are so eager to compromise.
The strictly principled approach may not fare much better, but it has the advantage of one side at least speaking the unvarnished truth.
I’m tired of both parties lying through their teeth, one in the name of “social justice”, and the other in the name of “take what you can get” - both parties have been corrupted by special interest lobbies.
I find it refreshing when a Republican refuses to play the compromise game.