Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Does Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) want to repeal the Emancipation Proclamation? It depends on when you ask him.

Senator Paul raised the subject during a Thursday night appearance in Manchester, New Hampshire. During a question-and-answer session with Republican activists, a young man reportedly asked Paul, “If you were to receive the presidency, would you repeal previous executive orders and actually restrain the power of the presidency?”

“I think the first executive order that I would issue would be to repeal all previous executive orders,” Paul replied, as quoted by Real Clear Politics.

This would be problematic for a number of reasons. Although Republicans would presumably love to do away with President Obama’s executive order protecting some young immigrants from deportation, for example, repealing others would be a tougher sell. Would Paul really want to reverse President Lincoln’s order freeing the slaves, President Truman’s order desegregating the armed forces, or President Kennedy’s order barring discrimination in the federal government?

Well, not when you put it that way.

“Well, I mean, I think those are good points, and it was an offhand comment, so obviously, I don’t want to repeal the Emancipation Proclamation and things like that,” Paul told Real Clear Politics when questioned on the broader impact of his plan. “Technically, you’d have to look and see exactly what that would mean, but the bottom line is it’s a generalized statement that I think too much is done by executive order, particularly under this president. Too much power has gravitated to the executive.”

In reality, President Obama has issued fewer executive orders than any president since Franklin Roosevelt. But still, Paul’s point is clear: He was speaking extemporaneously, and doesn’t actually want to repeal all executive orders.

That excuse would be easier to swallow if Paul hadn’t made the same promise to the Louisville Chamber of Commerce in August:

Asked directly if he would issue executive orders as president, Paul said the only circumstance would be to overturn the ones made by his predecessors.

“Only to undo executive orders. There’s thousands of them that can be undone,” said Paul. “And I would use executive orders to undo executive orders that have encroached on our jurisprudence, our ability to defend ourselves, the right to a trial, all of those I would undo through executive order.”

Paul later backed away from that comment in much the same way, telling reporters that “It wasn’t sort of a response of exactness.”

In fairness to Senator Paul, it seems highly unlikely that he really wants to resegregate the military in an effort to roll back executive overreach. But his clunky attempt to get on both sides of the issue has become a theme for him, which has repeated itself on Medicare, immigration, foreign aid, and a multitude of other topics.

His Democratic rivals have taken notice.

“Rand Paul’s problem isn’t that he changes positions — it’s that he insists that he can simultaneously hold multiple, contradictory positions on a litany of key issues,” Democratic National Committee press secretary Michael Czin said in a statement. “As Paul gears up for a presidential run, he changes positions to suit the moment or to match the views of the group in front of him. From confronting ISIL to ending aid to Israel to whether he supports the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act, Rand Paul disingenuously tries to have it every way.”

Paul may be able to get away with clunky flip-flopping in the Senate, but it will become a major liability for him if he pursues the presidency in 2016. Clearly, Democrats are ready and eager to attack his lack of consistency. If Paul isn’t careful, they could set the narrative for him long before the first votes are cast.

Photo: Talk Radio News Service via Flickr

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 The National Memo
  • ericlipps

    Out of the mouths of babes may come wisdom, but apparently out of the mouth of Rand Paul must come gibberish.

    Harsh, I know, but the Kentuckian has a real habit of saying stupid or crazy things. Apparently his mouth and his brain are imperfectly synchronized, like sound and picture in the earliest talking movies.

    • Dominick Vila

      For people like Sen. Paul, anything beyond naming a bridge after the Gipper is evil and unconstitutional.

  • Dominick Vila

    The ability of the Executive Branch to circumvent the Legislative Branch deserves debate, but when the goal is to deprive one party of the ability of using the Executive Order tool to get things done in the face of obstructionism or threats to our national security, while allowing another party to build on the all time record on this issue, is beyond partisanship and highlights the hypocrisy of those who regard efforts for equality as tyranny and see no alternative but to arm themselves to the teeth to ensure the “heathens” don’t enjoy what they consider theirs.

  • aabsalooka

    Senator Paul has situated himself where consistency is impossible. By continuing to present himself as a libertarian and yet simultaneously pursue the madness of the current republican agenda, contradiction is inevitable. The two political camps are incompatible and attempting to skate from one to the other will only demonstrate him to be a fool who doesn’t actually believe in anything except self-promotion. Oopps! Too late!

  • charleo1

    It’s a strange little party, these Libertarians, Theocrats, and megalomanic
    billionaires are trying to have. With the promise, I’ll hold my nose and scratch your back, if you hold yours, and scratch mine. So far, a lot of nose holding, and very little actual back scratching.

  • dpaano

    Paul is starting to sound a lot like his buddy, Romney…..waffle here, waffle there, waffle wherever it suits him! Didn’t work for Mitt….won’t work for Paul either!