Rand Paul's Isolationist Views Rebuked by Senate

Rand Paul may be a Tea Party darling, but he went down in flames in a vote in the U.S. Senate.  And that doesn't even take in the tongue lashing he received from Chris Christie on the issue of federal aid to a state - i.e., New Jersey receives 77 cents for every $1 sent to Washington - that gives much more money to Washington than it receives versus a state - i.e., Paul's Kentucky which receives over $1.5 for every $1 sent to Washington - which is a freeloader in comparison propped up by federal money.  The overall effect is to show that Paul is not ready for prime time outside of Tea Party circles.  The Washington Post looks at the rebuke in the Senate.  Here are excerpts:

Chris Christie, the popular GOP governor of New Jersey, last week called Paul’s libertarian views “dangerous.” And on the Senate floor Wednesday, Republican colleagues dealt the junior senator from Kentucky what can be described only as a resounding rebuke. 

Even the 86-13 vote against Paul’s proposal to strip Egypt of its foreign aid doesn’t capture the lopsided nature of the defeat. In the final seconds of the roll call and long after the outcome was obvious, a bloc of six GOP lawmakers led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) quietly cast their votes with Paul — not in agreement with him but in fear of the tea party voters who adore him.

But whether Paul’s position had seven Republican votes or 13, the isolationist gadfly found himself in the decided minority of the 45-member Senate GOP caucus. And in the hour-long debate that preceded the vote, Paul was alone on the floor defending his position against an emotional onslaught from his party’s most respected voices on foreign policy.  

The result reinforced the proud tradition of internationalism in the body, and in the GOP. For all the talk of a Republican civil war over foreign policy, Wednesday’s vote showed that the internationalists still dominate. McCain portrayed Paul as the heir to the America Firsters. 

Paul, attempting to attach his proposal to a domestic spending measure, made his familiar argument for “nation-building here at home” instead of overseas. “Detroit crumbles. Chicago is a war zone,” he said. 

His colleagues had different ideas. Sen. Jim Inhofe (Okla.), the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said he might have agreed with Paul 15 years ago, “before we realized the threats that we have in the Middle East.” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) tried a practical appeal, saying the aid cutoff would mean “you lose leverage.” And Graham read aloud a letter from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee opposing Paul’s amendment.

Paul responded to all this with rambling speeches and wild gestures, refusing to yield when colleagues asked him to and accusing his opponents of “empty thoughts and empty promises.”

For the Republican internationalists, this wasn’t about winning but dominating.