Paul-itics as usual

After the first few Republican debates, I learned my lesson. Getting ready for some fireworks at last Tuesday’s debate, I grabbed a cold drink, muted my stream of the Celtics game and sprawled on a couch in Carmichael Hall. After all, with a slimmed down field of eight, it could surely only mean more time for Donald Trump and his antics.

The moderators from Fox Business Network and The Wall Street Journal did a good job keeping the debate on track, while also pushing candidates for specifics. Thus, instead of his usual hijinks, Mr. Trump tried to talk issues and failed miserably. My personal favorite was when he ranted about China and its alleged currency manipulation in response to a question on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). China, as Kentucky Senator Rand Paul duly pointed out, was never a part of TPP negotiations. Oops.

Paul continued to position himself as the libertarian alternative on stage. He attacked and engaged Florida Senator Marco Rubio, creating a genuine back-and-forth and the kind of discourse for which we watch debates.

As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, Rubio has positioned himself as the perfect candidate: energetic, smart and most importantly, conservative. Paul put him to the test, questioning whether a conservative could truly be called such if they are willing to dole out an extra trillion dollars on military spending over a decade. Low government spending and high military spending are somewhat contradictory tenets of the modern Republican Party. Paul, as an isolationist, has every right to question this.

Rubio answered in a textbook way: “I believe the world is a safer -- no, no, I don't believe, I know that the world is a safer place when America is the strongest military power in the world.” Paul’s jabs will only give Rubio confidence and a sense of authority; after his answer, the audience cheered. The sooner Rubio gets used to these attacks on policy issues, and not just personal attacks (I’m looking at you, Jeb), the sooner he will become a real threat to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Paul addressing what seems like a paradox in Republican doctrine is exactly why we have these debates. Nobody, myself included, gives Rand Paul a chance at winning the nomination or even becoming vice president. But his importance inthe primary process is paramount. Paul is very critical of NSA surveillance and the Federal Reserve, while also being in favor of legalizing medical marijuana; these are by no means mainstream views. Whether you agree with the senator or not, he brings a sort of diversity to the debates; one can only handle so many tangents on Ronald Reagan.

Because of the bloated field, though, Paul’s speaking time has been limited. According to Time magazine,he is averaging only about seven-and-a-half minutes per debate, just about half of Trump. Carly Fiorina has spoken more in just three debates than Paul has in four. I guess the ultimate contrast to this would be the three-person Democratic debate on Saturday. Your call which one is worse for the democratic process.