Barry Goldwater Jr. changes support from Paul to Romney

[cajuncocoa]

You sure have that name-calling down, don't you, Davy? Please continue making yourself look foolish.

C'mon, LE...you know you can dish it out as well as you take it.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I have said before I don't fault good supporters of liberty for voting for Romney. I know Peter Schiff and Richard Mack are (reluctantly) doing so, and they are two of my heroes. This is what Barry is doing. There are good arguments for doing so, and there are noticeable differences, despite what the radical melodramatic people will say. I do believe there is a greater chance of our liberty people getting stuff passed with Romney, and the leaders of this movement backing him helps get us in the mainstream. I think on economic issues Romney is better, on foreign policy they would be similar, and on the courts Romney should be better. The courts issue is an issue the Judge acknowledges and I have thought about in depth. I believe John Taylor would be a better Fed chairman than Bernanke. And we already know what Obama is, and he ain't going to get any better. If my vote was the deciding vote, I would vote for Romney.

As it stands, my vote isn't the deciding vote. I do not feel compelled to support a Massachusetts moderate who is ignorant of many of the issues I am passionate about. He doesn't need my money, my vote, or my moral support. I prefer to wink and nod at him like Rand and Amash, and try to help liberty whatever the outcome is. If Romney gets elected, we must hold his feet to the fire.

 

[TheGrinch]

I'm not a member of the LP, but I consider myself small-l libertarian. I'm not a member of the two-party system either. FWIW, I think DavidK is right about them being a corporate machine....just look at the list of their donors if you doubt that.

Whose donors? Goldwaters?

 

[DavidK]

Whose donors? Goldwaters?

Mitten Sachs.

 

[TheGrinch]

Mitten Sachs.

Gotcha, maybe that was part of why he supported Dr. Paulthroughout the primarie.

I dsagree with the endorsement, but some of you really overreact about what it amounts to.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I'm not a member of the LP, but I consider myself small-l libertarian. I'm not a member of the two-party system either. FWIW, I think DavidK is right about them being a corporate machine....just look at the list of their donors if you doubt that.

Whose donors? Goldwaters?

A: the two major parties, aka corporate machine.

 

[Keith and stuff]

It looks like Rand Paul has either a fake tan or make-up. Maybe both? I still love his speech, though!

 

[LibertyEagle]

It sure as hell doesn't make him our ally endorsing the GOP corporate candidate -- amirite? And please see canjuns post.

Yes, I believe that he is still our ally in the long run. I'm not going to throw him under the bus for this one thing. If he started denouncing Dr. Paul, that would be another thing completely. But, he didn't do that. And he stayed with Dr. Paul as long as he was in the race.

Look, you cannot throw everyone under the bus for stuff like this. It's stupid. Our guy is not running in this race any longer. So, we are not going to win the presidency this time. But, we have a lot of other races to win and that is what I am focused on.

You are unnecessarily alienating people, when there is absolutely nothing to gain.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Gotcha, maybe that was why he supported Dr. Paulthroughout the race.

I dsagree with the endorsement, but some of you really overreact about what it amounts to.

I'm really tired of hearing this excuse ... probably more tired than you are of us overreacting to it.

If it doesn't mean anything, then why do it? I've asked that questions hundreds of times, and still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer.

Where Rand is concerned, the excuses vary between (1) he had to do it, and (2) it doesn't mean anything.

Why would one HAVE to do something that doesn't mean ANYTHING? Makes no sense.

Makes less sense in BGJr's case, as he is not a sitting U.S. Senator in the GOP.

 

[DavidK]

Yes, I believe that he is still our ally in the long run. I'm not going to throw him under the bus for this one thing. If he started denouncing Dr. Paul, that would be another thing completely. But, he didn't do that. And he stayed with Dr. Paul as long as he was in the race.

Look, you cannot throw everyone under the bus for stuff like this. It's stupid. Our guy is not running in this race any longer. So, we are not going to win the presidency this time. But, we have a lot of other races to win and that is what I am focused on.

You are unnecessarily alienating people, when there is absolutely nothing to gain.

I only ask that people explain their actions, especially when they are so controversial. They say they endorse that individual (which by definition means they support their policies) but in Rand & Goldwaters case, it makes no sense.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Yes, I believe that he is still our ally in the long run. I'm not going to throw him under the bus for this one thing.

I'm not throwing him under the bus either, but I am disappointed.

You're entitled to your opinion, and others are free to disagree....no?

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not throwing him under the bus either, but I am disappointed.

You're entitled to your opinion, and others are free to disagree....no?

Sure, but David and a couple others went quite a bit farther than that.

 

[TheGrinch]

I'm really tired of hearing this excuse ... probably more tired than you are of us overreacting to it.

If it doesn't mean anything, then why do it? I've asked that questions hundreds of times, and still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer.

Where Rand is concerned, the excuses vary between (1) he had to do it, and (2) it doesn't mean anything.

Why would one HAVE to do something that doesn't mean ANYTHING? Makes no sense.

Makes less sense in BGJr's case, as he is not a sitting U.S. Senator in the GOP.

I only ask that people explain their actions, especially when they are so controversial. They say they endorse that individual (which by definition means they support their policies) but in Rand & Goldwaters case, it makes no sense.

Rand has told us why he felt he needed to make this endorsement (see his interview with Peter Schiff below). It's entirely possible to have reasons for endorsing someone (and in Goldwater's case he might actually see Obama as much worse, even though I don't agree), without it meaning that you endorse their policies. CC, we've had this conversation so many times that you know this isn't just an excuse. It's calculated political move that you don't burn bridges and paint yourself in a corner if you actually want any sort of help on implementing your policies. Rand saw what they did to Ron, and so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until he starts taking lobbyist money and stops fighting for our causes:

 

[DavidK]

Sure, but David and a couple others went quite a bit farther than that.

I'm just a lot more aggressive then you when it comes to leaving people accountable to their actions. In the words of Anonymous, I do not forgive, and I do not forget.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I only ask that people explain their actions, especially when they are so controversial. They say they endorse that individual (which by definition means they support their policies) but in Rand & Goldwaters case, it makes no sense.

Rand's situation has been explained so many times on here, that it is pointless to do it again.

With Goldwater, I would imagine because he comes from a different generation and that since he has been a Republican all his life, he always votes for the best person he can in that party. That was Dr. Paul as long as he was in the race and now that he isn't, it is Romney. But, I seriously doubt he will be out campaigning for Romney as he did for Paul. Is it a perfect situation, no. But, I expected it, because it is what he did last time too and I know others like that. I don't agree with them on this, but I understand their viewpoint. These people are not our enemies. What good does it do to make them that? We will be running more candidates and will need their support in the primaries. It's not very wise to make enemies where they do not need to be.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm just a lot more aggressive then you when it comes to leaving people accountable to their actions. In the words of Anonymous, I do not forgive, and I do not forget.

No, you started flinging around labels ignorantly, is what you did.

 

[DavidK]

They're not our enemies, but they're also not our allies. Sorry, an endorsement is an endorsement, I don't care how you want to distort the word. Unless Rand was threatened he has NO excuse for what he did, period. As far as Goldwater, as I said before, he's not his father, because his father would have never endorsed a corporate candidate.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

The fact is, either Romney or Obama is going to be elected. I hear about the "false left-right paradigm". Its not false, that is what we have unfortunately.

When some good people say they are supporting Romney now, they prefer Romney to Obama. I mean, that makes sense. I prefer Romney to Obama, I think this country would be in better shape with him, as would the liberty movement. Obama won't sign any pro-liberty legislation, but Romney might and probably will as concessions. But I'm writing in Ron Paul.

Yet people act as if there is some great treason going on, after these people supported Ron Paul strongly during the primaries in both runs. Its not like they suddenly sold their soul to the devil. They didn't get bought off; and no offense to them, they are not important enough to be bought off. They didn't suddenly change their ideology either.

My advice is that this movement be respectful to Romney and endorse change in November like our great Ron Paul delegates did. Don't get cuddly with Romney, just make peace with him. This is NOT the ideal situation, but I prefer it to our movement becoming the LaRouche movement of the right. We have come too far for that to happen.

 

[DavidK]

The fact is, either Romney or Obama is going to be elected. I hear about the "false left-right paradigm". Its not false, that is what we have unfortunately.

When some good people say they are supporting Romney now, they prefer Romney to Obama. I mean, that makes sense. I prefer Romney to Obama, I think this country would be in better shape with him, as would the liberty movement. Obama won't sign any pro-liberty legislation, but Romney might and probably will as concessions. But I'm writing in Ron Paul.

Yet people act as if there is some great treason going on, after these people supported Ron Paul strongly during the primaries in both runs. Its not like they suddenly sold their soul to the devil. They didn't get bought off; and no offense to them, they are not important enough to be bought off. They didn't suddenly change their ideology either.

My advice is that this movement be respectful to Romney and endorse change in November like our great Ron Paul delegates did. Don't get cuddly with Romney, just make peace with him. This is NOT the ideal situation, but I prefer it to our movement becoming the LaRouche movement of the right. We have come too far for that to happen.

I will never make peace with a man who plans to make war...

 

[LibertyEagle]

The best I can do is ignore Romney.

EDIT: But, in reality, I can't do that, either. I post little truth bombs about him on a daily basis on Facebook.