“Were Paul to win, wouldn’t you expect him to have at least some sort of a mandate?”
He’ll claim to have one, but that’s about it.
“If he won, it would stand to reason that a majority of voters agreed with most of his positions, no?”
No, because people will see him for the danger that he is once he tries to ram through his policy.
“I would imagine most all republicans and a good number of democrats would support his bid to establish border security.”
His efforts to establish border security?
You mean like:
In 1999: Voted against the Traficant Amendment to H.R. 1401 to authorize the use of the military on the border?
In 2000: Voted against the Traficant Amendment to H.R. 4205 to authorize the use of the military in border control efforts?
In 2001: Voted against the Traficant Amendment to H.R. 2586 to authorize the use of troops on the border?
In 2002: Voted against amendment to authorize the use of the military in border control efforts?
In 2003: Voted against the Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588 to authorize the use of the military to assist in border control?
2004: Voted against the Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200 authorize troops on the border
In 2005: Voted against the Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Amendment to H.R. 4437 to increase border controls?
In 2005: Voted against H.R. 418 to increase border controls?
In 2005: Voted against H. Amdt. 206 to H.R. 1815 to authorize troops on the border?
And it wasn’t until recently (within the last year) that he decided that he better start “acting tough” about the border so he can run for Presidnet.
And FYI. The reason why the 1st Cavalry Division was created was to patrol the U.S.-Mexican border.
From the Division’s history page:
“The division’s early history is largely a saga of rough riding, patrolling the Mexican border, and constant training. Operating from horseback, the cavalry was the only force capable of piercing the desert’s harsh terrain and halting the band of smugglers that operated along the desolate Mexican border.”
http://pao.hood.army.mil/1stcavdiv/
Yet Mr. “We must secure the borders” is against doing the very things that he says we should do.
Really, you don’t think that if he were elected, the people that voted for him wouldn’t agree with any of his policies? Great logic there. Wait, what logic?
After perusing several of those bills, I would oppose most of them as well.
Most of these amendments in essence turn soldiers into LEOs, searching trucks at the border and planes at airports. I completely understand why he voted against most of these. The Hunter amendment, I’m not sure why he voted against that, and I may disagree with him over that. However, he has a definite record of voting against bills for small problems contained within them, which is something I don’t have problem with.
He did in the end vote for the bill Hunter amended though, didn’t he? After all that, he did vote yes on that bill.