Rand Paul was being opportunistic. (Talk Radio News Service, Creative Commons)

I’m not sure what suprises me more: the fact that people actually believed Paul’s diatribe was motivated by a sincere regard for civil liberties,  or the sheer transparency of the Kentucky senator’s ambitions. This was political theater at its least subtle.

My heart goes out to those amongst the libertarian flock who still believe that Rand Paul would pursue the libertarian agenda with the same vigor and passion that his father did. They can't pretend they weren't warned, though. Paul left them behind some time ago.

The dust had barely settled on  Mitt Romney’s failed presidential run when Paul started preening to be the next standard bearer for the Republican Party. His fierce criticism of Secretary Clinton and his trip to Israel were just preparation for the moment when Paul would seize the national stage and cast himself as the heir apparent to the White House.

While some may still cling to the belief that Paul’s marathon stand on Wednesday was the act of a true patriot defending his beliefs, one must ask where Paul’s grandstanding was when other articles of the constitution were being trampled.

When Republicans blocked jury trials for Guantanamo Bay prisoners, Paul’s “formal objection” lacked the vigor and endurance that his stand against Obama’s drone policy did. I guess the constitution is only cool when it doesn’t stop you from ingratiating yourself with your Republican buddies.

Paul cast his imminent presidential run as what the American people need: “something new, fresh and different.” Someone should probably inform him that there is nothing new or fresh about naked opportunism.

Reach Columnist Christian Patterson here; follow him here.