Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Rand Paul Endorsement of Mitt Romney Proves He's a True Libertarian Leader, Not Ron Paul Enemy
Source:
Policymic
URL Source: http://www.policymic.com/articles/9 ... rian-leader-not-ron-paul-enemy
Published: Jun 11, 2012
Author: Allan Stevo
Post Date: 2012-06-11 22:08:52 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 8721
Comments: 21
Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) endorsed Mitt Romney last Thursday to the dismay of many armchair quarterbacks in the liberty movement. An interesting question I've heard repeatedly is, "Why would Rand Paul do this now? Why would he do it when the revolution is in full swing?" There's a simple answer to that question. Rand Paul is widely regarded as a leader in Kentucky's Republican Party and a real hero of the Tea Party movement. This weekend, Kentucky had its Republican state convention. Rand Paul could have walked into that state convention, where Ron Paul supporters were not dominant and said, "The Ron Paul revolution will go to Tampa and entirely disrupt the national convention if we have to" or he could say, "Let's get behind a candidate, fellow Republicans." In essence, those were his two options. I like drama and might have preferred him saying the former. Being realistic, it's clear that Rand Paul has had a deadline to work with. He had to publicly endorse a candidate by Thursday, June 7, so that he could walk into his state convention with a clear message. Instead of criticizing Senator Paul for endorsing Mitt Romney so early in the process – after all, there are many state conventions ahead that will determine delegates – Ron Paul supporters must understand that Rand Paul endorsed Romney at the latest that he could have. He endorsed on the last conservative national show the Thursday night before his state's convention. The guy gave as much time to the Ron Paul revolution as he could and then backed Romney. There are many in Ron Paul's ranks who would never do such a thing. In all likelihood, those people might not be successful at politics. Rand Paul, in all likelihood, will be a political success for many years to come. That means some compromising. Maybe Rand Paul will compromise on values. Everyone surely has a hierarchy of values some of which are vital, some of which are less important. Criticizing a politician for compromising on values is entirely valid, but that’s not what’s happening right now. Right now, Ron Paul supporters are attacking Rand Paul for tactics. It's not really all that fair for a man who has won a Senate election to be criticized about tactics so vitriolically by well-intentioned, yet (largely) politically inexperienced observers. Attack him on betraying values if you feel compelled to – all humans can claim to be expert on values – but if attacking him on tactics is your goal, tone it down a little or at least post your resume showing how many times you have successfully won a federal office. Ron Paul and son Rand Paul are two different people, and Rand Paul is offering the Ron Paul revolution a bridge into mainstream American politics that may bear fruit. Will it work? Will Rand Paul prove a disappointment to the Ron Paul revolution? Maybe, but we won't know that for many years. For all anybody knows, Ron Paul supporters might end up liking Rand Paul more than Ron Paul himself. What is clear right now is that Rand Paul timed his announcement perfectly – before his state convention, very late in the process, as publicly as possible. On Thursday, Rand Paul became a national public figure. The liberty movement has another national public figure advocating for their values. That's meaningful. Many may have wanted Rand Paul to publicly stand by his father until the national convention, but it is nice to know that he as a senator feels responsible to the people of his state above others. That is, after all, the role of a senator – to represent his state. Building the strength of the party in his own state, building his own base, understandably needs to take some precedence over national issues. It's easy to leave a nasty comment on Facebook, but it's hard to be the one on national television taking the heat. Kudos to Senator Paul for being more than another unsuccessful armchair quarterback. With luck, we'll see him passing lots of constitutional conservative legislation through the senate and maybe even one day, he'll be the one signing that constitutional conservative legislation into law. I understand that many who do not have the stomach for politics are disgusted with Senator Paul right now. I also understand that someone who has the stomach has stood up and essentially elevated his standing. That both the critics and Rand Paul believe many of the same ideas would lead one to think that the critics would instead support the senator. Rand Paul just took one for the constitutional conservative team. He's endorsing a guy that he doesn't agree much with. Some may call it despicable behavior, but without a doubt, there are others who would call that praiseworthy. Rand Paul has earned clout for himself, which might just succeed at earning greater clout for a constitutional conservative message in the GOP and in Washington, D.C. Would I have done the same? Probably not. Do I see why his move makes sense? Yes. Might there be a day where the members of the liberty movement are grateful to have Rand Paul in D.C. playing politics? Probably.
Poster Comment: Do I see why his move makes sense? Yes. Might there be a day where the members of the liberty movement are grateful to have Rand Paul in D.C. playing politics? Probably.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
At this point Rand Paul is a complete sellout...not unlike Ben Frankln's son who sided with the enemies of freedom, the British. Endorsing Romney is like endorsing Hitler while at the same time stating you like Jews...only the terminally stupid would believe such idiocy.
Today, you fell off another roof, correct?
What if... Ron suggested it? What if it is just 'playing the game' in a bid for 2016?
"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave." Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772
What if it is just 'playing the game' in a bid for 2016? Then he's done something that Ron has never done. I think Rand has essentially put on the Ring of Power to try to do something good. The more times someone good does that, the more they slip to the dark side. It will always be possible to claim some goodly reason for playing politics, and Rand has done it once. How many more times will he do it? If he does it enough, he'll eventually be endorsing more war, taxes and debt for it's supposed benefits of freedom. After all, that's what most everyone does in DC these days, don't they? Rand has chosen a step down a slippery slope, doing something Ron has never ever done, and for that reason, I don't believe Ron had any part of it. I hope we don't see any more of this kind of thing in the future.
FIXED.
"Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all." Michael Rivero
Like lose an Senate primary in Texas and then flip to become the LP nominee in '88? Like advocate for the legalization of heroin like Ron did this year? That's so popular with the voters. Ron burned his bridges long ago, knowing he wouldn't be prez. Rand does have the same fundamental ideology but he isn't going to march into the political wilderness. You do have to win an election to make a difference.
Now that makes sense... Until the establishments power is taken away he would have to be somewhat in their good graces....
Political Bumper Stickers: The fastest way in the world to let people know you are a total dumbass.... Total number of Obama 2012 bumper stickers I've seen so far......5!! Total number of Romney 2012 bumper stickers I've seen so far...0!!
I think Rand has essentially put on the Ring of Power to try to do something good. The more times someone good does that, the more they slip to the dark side. It will always be possible to claim some goodly reason for playing politics, and Rand has done it once. How many more times will he do it? If he does it enough, he'll eventually be endorsing more war, taxes and debt for it's supposed benefits of freedom. After all, that's what most everyone does in DC these days, don't they? Rand has chosen a step down a slippery slope, doing something Ron has never ever done, and for that reason, I don't believe Ron had any part of it. I hope we don't see any more of this kind of thing in the future. First the ring isn't real. It was a moviem, well actually a book first. Second. The founders compromised over slavery. Is that worse then saying I endorse Romney? I think so. Third. Ron Paul tried to win the Presidency 3 times and honestly never got that far. Oh he has a great following but he never really broke out. Fourth. Do you have a problem with Rands voting record? With a single one of his votes maybe? Rand is going to go where Ron was never able to go. I like Ron Paul. But he comes off as a bit goofy sometimes when he talks about certain issues. I see a fellow poster brought drugs. Well how about abortion. How can a man be against a constitutional amendment banning murder if they really think it is murder? People get turned off by that. Rand doesn't have that baggage. Like I said Rands position is more like Thomas Jefferson's accepting slavery knowing that it will have to end later. Not putting on some mythical ring of power.
I've never met any of those people.
What if it is just 'playing the game' in a bid for 2016? Not that I'm saying that is what happened, just that it's possible.
"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave." Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772
You can't win if you disqualify yourself from the game before you get to the starting gate. This is the problem with a startup political operation with tons of young naive people that have no experience in politics or the history of elections in this country. The second that they discover that politics actually involves...well, politics, they recoil in horror and run away. Even if they are on the verge of major victories. Damn.
SURE you have. To use another quote: I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. -- V for Vendetta, 2005 --
"Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all." Michael Rivero
Yeah, like that is something to be proud of. He's taken that first step down the dark path called "compromising your principles." Assuming he has any, of course... Ron Paul was never able to go there, because he has INTEGRITY. Now rand's just another political squirrel, trying to get a nut. Feh.
"Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all." Michael Rivero
Rand Paul has only been a Senator for a very short time but, he voted for sanctions against Iran, an act of war according to his father Ron. If he doesn't support the right of nations to defend themselves, what of our God given 2nd amendment rights, and the rest? Can you guess which way Ron Paul voted?
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
The question answers itself. (((sigh)))
"Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all." Michael Rivero
Doesn't Ron always vote Yea on every bill? Or was that someone else?
That was Nancy Pelosi... you've got to pass it, to see it. Then John Orange Boehner goes... Uhhh, OK!
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
March 1, 2012 S Amdt 1520 Authorizes Moral and Religious Objections to Certain Health Care Items and Services Amendment Tabled - Senate (51 - 48) Nay Oct. 12, 2011 HR 3078 Trade Promotion Agreement with Colombia Bill Passed - Senate (66 - 33) Yea Oct. 12, 2011 HR 3079 Trade Promotion Agreement with Panama Bill Passed - Senate (77 - 22) Yea Oct. 12, 2011 HR 3080 Free Trade Agreement with Korea Bill Passed - Senate (83 - 15) Yea July 29, 2011 S 627 Increasing the Debt Ceiling (Boehner Bill) Bill Tabled - Senate (59 - 41) Yea "If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave." Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772
I don't agree with Ron on that. Ron is not Moses with some Ten (Thousand) Commandments. Nothing in the Constitution forbids the use of boycott cartels against dangerous regimes. And acts of war require directly harmful actions against an enemy army or population. Things like mining harbors would count. Bombing dams or destroying crops on a massive scale like Vietnam. Sanctions may come close in some respects but they do not qualify. And Ron is not always consistent himself. He tried to get Congress to declare war on Afghanistan formally and to issue letters of marque and reprisal (to pay mercenaries to kill Osama/AQ). Congress said no and yet Ron voted to authorize war (not to declare it). But, on the verge of the vote to impose sanctions (which Ron declared an act of war), Ron did not introduce a declaration of war on Iran as an alternative. Therefore, he does not actually consider sanctions an act of war either, whatever his rhetoric was. Ron is not necessarily purer than Rand.
The difference between Iran and Afghanistan is that the later actually was involved in attacking us. Iran? They've basically done nothing, in spite of many attempts at provocation. Who granted us the authority to tell other nations what arms they may have?
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice.
No one. It's that totally independent agency, the United Nations, that is forcing us to participate in these sanctions. You might want to review some info on the old Atoms For Peace program. We proliferated around the world in the Fifties and Sixties. We even started a seminal program in Afghanistan. Don't tell harrowup, he'll think his goat "hobby" qualifies him as a nuclear engineer.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Rand Paul Endorsement of Mitt Romney Proves He's a True Libertarian Leader, Not Ron Paul Enemy
#3. To: freedomsnotfree (#1)
At this point Rand Paul is a complete sellout
#4. To: We The People (#3)
What if... Ron suggested it?
#5. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Rand Paul
is WAS widely regarded as a leader in Kentucky's Republican Party and a real hero of the Tea Party movement.
#6. To: Pinguinite (#4)
Then he's done something that Ron has never done.
#7. To: We The People (#3)
What if it is just 'playing the game' in a bid for 2016?
#8. To: Pinguinite (#4)
Then he's done something that Ron has never done.
#9. To: Capitalist Eric (#5)
Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary,
#10. To: Pinguinite, TooConservative, CZ82 (#4)
What if... Ron suggested it?
#11. To: A K A Stone (#8)
Like I said Rands position is more like Thomas Jefferson's accepting slavery knowing that it will have to end later. Not putting on some mythical ring of power.
#12. To: A K A Stone (#9)
I've never met any of those people.
#13. To: A K A Stone (#8)
Rand is going to go where Ron was never able to go.
#14. To: A K A Stone, Capitalist Eric, Pinguinite, TooConservative, We The People, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#8)
Do you have a problem with Rands voting record? With a single one of his votes maybe?
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#15. To: hondo68 (#14)
#16. To: hondo68 (#14)
Can you guess which way Ron Paul voted?
#17. To: TooConservative (#16)
(Edited)
Or was that someone else?
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#18. To: A K A Stone (#8)
Do you have a problem with Rands voting record? With a single one of his votes maybe?
#19. To: hondo68 (#14)
Rand Paul has only been a Senator for a very short time but, he voted for sanctions against Iran, an act of war according to his father Ron.
#20. To: TooConservative, *Neo-Lib Chickenhawk Wars* (#19)
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#21. To: hondo68 (#20)
Who granted us the authority to tell other nations what arms they may have?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]