Thank you for this more level-headed criticism; it's much more refreshing than "Rand is comp'd/traitor…etc."
Paul's history is to default against executive action, like his father, but I think he's wrong in this particular instance. I am not entirely convinced that, if the defeat of the bill depended on his vote, he would've come down on the same side. Like it or not, our guys still have to consider optics and play politics…even POTUS can't come out and say certain things. Paul's position, I think, has more to do with the appearance of consistency for his political future. Not saying it's right, but he's no traitor.