Image 01 Image 03

It’s Official, Rand Paul Will Back Kavanaugh

It’s Official, Rand Paul Will Back Kavanaugh

You knew he would in the end

Monday, Sen. Rand Paul announced he would vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Paul was the only Senate Republican to openly discuss his reservations about supporting Kavanaugh (mostly due to his concerns about his favorite amendment and one he’s made a career championing and filibustering on behalf of — the fourth amendment) but promised he’d keep an open mind.

Sen. Paul explained why Kavanaugh earned his vote:

You knew he would eventually vote to confirm him. Paul routinely grandstands only to circle back and rejoin the Republican caucus.

New York Magazine nailed it:

But in the case of Paul, it is unlikely that McConnell should be too concerned.

After all, we’ve been here before. Paul made a big show of opposing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s nomination over Pompeo’s warmongering tendencies, vowing to do “whatever it takes” to stop him from being confirmed. But in the end, Paul folded, justifying his “yes” vote with a toothless assurance from Trump that Pompeo agreed with the president that the Iraq War was a mistake, and that the U.S. should withdraw from Afghanistan. (Trump actually supported the Iraq War, and American troops remains in Afghanistan.)

And last summer, Paul complained that the GOP’s “skinny repeal” of Obamacare didn’t go far enough before claiming that the bill counted as a personal win, and voting for its passage after all.

Paul did help kill the Graham-Cassidy version of Obamacare in September before it came to a vote, once again lambasting it as a half measure — though that proposal stood less chance of becoming law than skinny repeal. And he has cast one actual high-profile “no” vote against a Trump nominee: he declined to support Gina Haspel, President Trump’s pick to be CIA director, over her past role in torture.

But neither of those rebellions compare to the prospect of personally torpedoing a Supreme Court nominee who could shift the balance of the court for decades. And Paul has shown that when the chips are down, he is likely to budge.

Later in his Politico interview, the senator mused that despite his concerns, Kavanaugh probably wouldn’t be all that bad.

“Wouldn’t you rather have Kavanaugh than Ruth Bader Ginsburg?” he said. “He’s probably good on economic liberty and overzealous regulation and things like that. So I don’t want to have it sort of in a vacuum, I’ll have to weigh that versus other aspects that he may be a lot better than a Clinton appointee.”

Sen. Paul is as principled as they come, truly, and his decision to support Kavanaugh is illustrative of a mantra the post-Tea Party GOP should adopt — never let the perfect become the enemy of the good. In the political realm (and many places in real life), incremental gains are far better than no progress at all.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Does this mean that Heidi, Joe1, Joe2 can breath a little easier? That if Mitch gets his 51 those three will be “allowed” by Chuckie to vote with the GOP since their votes would be of no consequence.

There are many times when Paul is out to self promote, he did that here. I don’t think he was going give a no on this confirmation, yet he played it. I am not a fan of Rand Paul, as too many times it feels as if he is playing to the news media over things so he can get air time.

Half a loaf may be better than no loaf, but too often we settle for half a loaf instead of pursuing a whole loaf.

Ever since the 17th Amendment, the Senate—like any other electoral office—has been as much about show-biz as politics. Paul’s just doing his part. As long as he manages to avoid the sort of organ-grinder-monkey antics we see from some of the D’rat senators, I don’t have a big problem with this.

Collins also has indicated that she sees some positive in Kavanough. Further, polls show that the citizens of Maine are happy with him. The fact is, Roe v. Wade is no more likely to be overturned than Griswold. However it is likely it may be returned to its original finding and let the States construct laws around that finding.

“No one will ever completely agree with a nominee (unless of course you are the nominee)”

What an odd thing to say. Do we really need to spend time on the wetness of water? Maybe this is why Congress gets so little done.

    Fen in reply to Fen. | July 31, 2018 at 11:04 am

    H2O Rio!

    Please join us for 10 days of investigative exploration, poolside margarita mixers, and late night beach campfire talks as we choose the next Chairman to lead the Steering Committee to determine the site of the Preliminary Conference to create the agenda for the upcoming H20 Summmit in Paris 2024.

    How wet is water? Thousands of Congressional hours. Millions of taxpayer dollars. All leading to one certainty: you will find the answer to be priceless!

    Rand Paul

If Rand Paul were the nominee, I’d ask him why he endorsed Mitch McConnell during Mitch’s last Primary? Certainly it wasn’t because his challenger couldn’t win a statewide race, since 2 years later he was elected Governor!