The One Where An Obama-Supporter Questions Rand Paul’s Experience

Unbelievable.

Under the headline, “The GOP’s Amateur Hour,” Richard Cohen wrote in the Washington Post,

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what has Rand Paul ever done? Oh, sure, he’s a member of the U.S. Senate, but only a freshman, and it’s the only political office he has held. He’s an ophthalmologist, a father, a husband and the son of Ron Paul, who used to run for president. So now it is son Rand who is doing so. Aside from family tradition, the question is why?

Yes. He actually wrote that.

It is true. Rand Paul hasn’t done much in political office. He hasn’t even won a Nobel Peace Prize like Barack Obama did.

Strangely, that doesn’t seem to move me.

Rand Paul, when he runs against Hilary, won’t have any experience that matches hers as Secretary of State (I’ll forget about her previous record as FLOTUS and then astro-turf Senator). He will never have presided over Benghazi or its cover up. He will never have protected an Administration that murdered Americans or killed civilians or asserted the President’s authority to indefinitely detain Americans without trial.

Rand Paul’s distinctive lack of experience in engaging in lawless and corrupt behavior stands out. But if you don’t believe me, consider Cohen’s own argument:

If you compare Paul to Republican presidential nominees of yesteryear, you can get an idea of just how far the GOP has sunk. Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachusetts and a very successful businessman. John McCain is a long-serving senator and war hero.

So we need to pick another RINO to lose to the Democrats again? No thank you. Since Cohen claims experience didn’t help George W. Bush, one can only wonder if he really believes his own argument. He says that “inexperience” hurt Obama, but I disagree. Obama chose insane policies that could only damage the country. The problem was bad ideology, not inexperience.

Rand Paul’s almost-thirteen-hour filibuster to delay John O’Brennan’s confirmation was heroic and historic. According to Wikipedia,

Paul noted his purpose was to challenge drone policy in general and specifically as it related to noncombatants on U.S. soil. He requested a pledge from the Administration that noncombatants would not be targeted on U.S. soil. Attorney General Eric Holder responded that the President is not authorized to deploy extrajudicial punishment without due process, against non combatant citizens. Paul answered that he was “quite happy” with the response.

That is more personal effort demonstrated to support a principle than we have ever seen from Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

In the end Cohen expresses respect only for Paul Ryan and Jeb Bush as possible candidates. Reader take note!