By Michael C. Moynihan
During his quixotic 2008 presidential campaign, I always assumed that Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), despite his protestations to the contrary, was content with injecting non-interventionism, Federal Reserve bashing, and sound money policies into the Republican debates, knowing that his chances of ending up in the White House were vanishingly small. Running for a Senate seat in Kentucky, and with a decent chance of victory, Paul's son Rand is slinking away from his libertarian roots, after the shellacking he took for suggesting that private business should be free to do (or not do) business with whomever they chose (there is much more to the argument than my incomplete summary, so if you are unfamiliar with the debate, you can start here). In the wake of the controversy, Paul's seemingly insurmountable 25 point lead over Democratic opponent Jack Conway has shrunk to an uncomfortable eight points.
Now, according to the AP, Paul is underscoring his differences with libertarianism and the Libertarian Party.
Republican Rand Paul said Tuesday he differs with the Libertarian Party by opposing abortion and supporting judicious overseas troop deployment, distancing himself from the party his father once represented in a presidential election.
The U.S. Senate candidate from Kentucky told syndicated conservative talk show host Sean Hannity that he doesn't fit the mold of a Libertarian. Paul said his conservative social views and willingness to send troops abroad to protect the U.S. set him apart from the party some have tried to associate him with.
"Instead of maybe saying we're never anywhere overseas, I say we need to be more judicious in where we are, in that I don't think we can afford to be everywhere all the time," Paul said. "But it also doesn't mean that we never intervene and that we can allow people to attack us."