Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) blocked bipartisan Ukraine aid. Who is right?

Rampage

Rampage

Member
(CNN) In a rare showing of public unity, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor to press for quick passage of a $40 billion aid bill for Ukraine but were blocked by GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky who is demanding changes to the legislation.
Despite the high-profile pressure from the two leaders, Paul refused to blink, meaning that Schumer will need to take procedural steps to overcome his objection, which could take several days, but will ultimately lead to passage of the supplemental spending bill sometime next week.
McConnell and Schumer on Thursday offered to allow a vote on Paul's amendment, but he insisted it be added to the underlying bill.
The change Paul is seeking would create a special inspector general to oversee how the Ukraine military aid is spent. Members from both parties broadly agree with that notion, but forcing a change to the bill at this stage would be very time consuming and would slow getting the needed aid to Ukraine.

www.cnn.com

Rand Paul blocks bipartisan effort to swiftly pass Ukraine aid

In a rare showing of public unity, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor to press for quick passage of a $40 billion aid bill for Ukraine but were blocked by GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky who is demanding changes to the legislation.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

The aid seems to important enough for both Schumer (D) and McConnell (R) to support it. Rand Paul is thwarting both.

But is Inspector General oversight Rand Paul wants really such a bad idea?
 
I don't mind Rand Paul. I may even have voted for his pappy when Ron was the Libertarian presidential nominee.

But our U.S. federal legislature is by Constitutional enumeration a deliberative bicameral legislature. The president may have Constitutional veto power. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) does not. I'm all for standing on noble, Constitutionally obligatory principle. But obstruction with human life at risk is legitimate cause for concern. 1 out of 535 can block the bill?
Over the entire legislative voting record of the younger doctor Paul he's been an ideologue iirc. Has Rand Paul ever voted in favor of a spending bill?
I'm all for political / fiscal conservatism. But I'm not an anarchist. For the most conservative reasons I share Senators Paul preference for smaller, less intrusive, less authoritarian government. That's why I'm so appalled 5 Republicans (SCOTUS) are scheming to drive the U.S. back half a century. If the Roberts court succeeds in reversing Roe, it will be a case where the Republican party revokes a Constitutional right. The GOP treads thin ice, for if revoking a woman's right of choice is that simple, what might Biden do if he gets to replace one of the 5 Republican appointed supreme court justices? Revoke the 2nd Amendment, merely another Constitutional right?

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine

Another reason for concern: President Obama nominated Merrick Garland, but Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY) refused to do his Constitutionally designated duty, the reason for SCOTUS' current membership. If McConnell (R-KY) does that, is it really so unreasonable for Democrats to counter? What would McConnell do if the roles were reversed?

I've read Biden has the authority to change the number of seats on our supreme court. And if Biden added two additional SCOTUS justices the court would maintain an odd number, from 9 to 11. But it would shift the balance of the court to the loyal opposition. And if done before the Republican 5 reversed Roe, a Democrat majority on the high court could protect Roe v. Wade for the foreseeable future. My suspicion:
- Normally the party that holds the presidency loses seats in the house of representatives in the mid-term elections, half way through the president's 4 year term. BUT !
- If the Republican threat shows the endurance to end Roe, and Biden heroically blocks the GOP, and keeping Roe v. Wade intact, the Dems might actually gain house seats in 2022.

It is shocking these 5 Republicans have such broad support within the GOP, even if our nation is opposed to overturning Roe.
 
(Glad to be back)
Before reasoning any response to the "Veto" as to Aid for Ukraine 2 points I would like to raise.
The first we in the West live under Democratically elected Governments. Which in turn give those we elect a right to question any declaration as to spending any Government money. That in it's self means "People power" there bye there is no force which an un-elected "Person" or ruler can demand or over rule that peoples elected Government or the peoples wishes.
Our Democratically system, may have it's faults, but when one thinks of the alternative, which is "practiced" in those Country's whose people have no say in how a Government act's, we should stand and cheer, even though we may totally disagree with the person who has raised his concern.
Second point, of course we need to "view" how any money or Aid is given and "spent".
However having posted those two points, the person who has raised his concerns should just may be take a step backwards, and realise that if Dictators are able to "unleash" the Horror which is at this time being inflected on the people of Ukraine "Brother take my Aid" and crush those who would if not stopped now----well I will leave that to others imagination.
 
"Which in turn give those we elect a right to question any declaration as to spending any Government money." W #3
Click to expand...
Generally so, for legislators. BUT: let's consider some detail.

a) There is severe if not rabid partisan dissension within congress.
b) Substantial components of this dissension are based on deliberate fiction. This has gotten so extreme it has even resulted in bloody armed insurrection, an internal domestic attempt to overthrow our Constitutional government for the first time in history.
c) All this has resulted in an extremely delicate balance, literally 50:50 in the U.S. senate. This is pivotal to the impact, for it demonstrates that literally one voter can change the outcome of the senate's vote.
d) It may have been Rampage that posted that President Biden considers Russia's invasion & attempted conquest of Ukraine is an existential threat, literally a contest between Soviet style dictatorship, and democracy. If Biden is right about that, it's about more than mere spending, it's about preserving democracy on Earth. Remember "the domino theory"?
e) In that context does it make sense that one peer legislator should counter the will of dozens of his fellow party members, fellow legislators?

On the second point, perhaps more for the U.S. than other nations, it renders down to a question of whether the Russian bear's claws are trimmed back with $U.S. $dollars and Ukraine's blood today, or whether Russia's military adventurism is allowed to fester & progress to the point that containing Russia then becomes an even bigger problem requiring both $U.S. $dollars, AND U.S. blood tomorrow. The easiest time to snuff out a wildfire is while it's still on the match.

Given Sen. Rand Paul's (R-KY) congressional voting record, it seems likely these broader existential considerations have been overlooked in service to Sen. Paul's narrow fiscal conservative ideology, regardless of consequence.
 
Things, as the say, "have moved" and now Ukraine needs more of advanced Armaments then ever before. The fact that the Ukrainian Army's have been " a right Royal pain" in Putin rear-end, shows that a will to win, is still a major plus, but they still need the "Superior" arms to finally either stop or teach the Russian's they are not going to win the invasion of Ukraine.
However the E.U. and mostly Germany and France, have effectively "sat on the hands" and have shown the Russian's although they might not win, they could still "escape" with some honour (if that's possible)
One thing this Invasion has shown is the Wests "Weakness" when facing not only Russia but China. The West was "seen" by many as a "buffer or block" to any future "expansion of Communism", now well time will tell, IMHO what we have seen is that given the willingness of the West to believe that any past "expansion" was in the past and the West could trade freely with both Russia and China with no fear, is most certainly over.
 
"One thing this Invasion has shown is the Wests "Weakness" when facing not only Russia but China." W #5
Click to expand...
In some ways perhaps.
But I believe Putin was counting on far, far less Western cohesion than his invasion has actually received. Reports even indicate OPEC may be stepping up to help fill the petroleum void created by the punitive trade restrictions the West has imposed on Gazprom / Russia / Putin.

W:
It's a severe gripe of mine. I think it's horrendous the way the West / NATO in general, but the U.S. in particular have been so slow & parsimonious with help to Ukraine. Not just a rhetorical criticism, it sincerely seems to me Ukraine is first made to suffer the loss of cities, and thousands of her troops. Only after that is assistance at the level required to succeed then offered, in far too many Ukraine cases too little too late. It is a disgrace to Western "civilization" (if it can be called that in this context).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top