Larison applauds Rand Paul's fiscal austerity:

I want to make a few observations about the importance of Paul’s candidacy and the apparent failure of party and movement establishment figures to defeat him. First of all, Paul is one of a very few Republican candidates in the country who is truly serious in his desire for fiscal responsibility. In his hostility to expansive government and reckless spending, he does not make exceptions for military spending, and he is appropriately skeptical of government power whether it comes in the form of military adventurism and empire-building or sweeping social legislation and bailouts. Paul is the candidate of both austerity and peace, which is why he is particularly terrifying to David Frum, who has spent many years arguing for an agenda that values neither.

Josh Green is on the campaign trail with Paul:

Of the two major GOP candidates, Paul has been by far the purer: Trey Grayson wants to balance the budget eventually, but Paul wants to do it in a single year. Grayson wants to rein in earmarks without banishing them outright (Kentucky benefits greatly from earmarks, especially given McConnell's seniority), Paul wants to do away with them altogether. It's almost unfair to Grayson that this is costing him so dearly--he is being responsible in saying that the budget is not going to get balanced in one year (it's not), and he's looking out for the state's interests by wanting to bring home the pork. But it's clear, just as it was in Utah last week when Sen. Bob Bennett lost, that voters are angry and far more interested in a candidate who speaks in absolutes.  

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.