Jack Hunter Resigns

[Federico]

I really hope Rand has cojones, but every time I turn around, it seems, he has turned colors like a chameleon.

Example(s)?

 

[Federico]

Well, Ron did say that he doesn't even talk to his son about politics that much, so I don't see how Ron could really know that Rand agrees with him 99% off the time.

You don't talk to his son about politics that much (read: ever), so I don't see how you could really know that Rand doesn't agree with him 99% of the time.

oh, wait

Its also not true. Their foreign policy is completely different. Mind you, Rand is no neocon, I'm not saying that, but he is clearly a moderate interventionist. Ron Paul doesn't want to get involved ANYWHERE. Rand won't take that stance, nor does he want to get rid of the bases and Guantanamo Bay. I'm voting for Rand, but that right there is probably more than 1%.

It's worthwhile to point out how badly confused you've become here; you say he is "clearly" a moderate interventionist, but I dispute this statement. That he refuses to take a pure non-interventionist stance is easily attributable to his Presidential aspirations; Ron already tried (and failed) with this strategy, so Rand is triangulating in an attempt to broaden the appeal of Ron's views. It's also flat wrong to say that he doesn't want to get rid of the bases and Guantanamo Bay; it's simply infeasible for a serious (R) contender to publicly take those positions.

And of course, there's stuff like drugs, abortion (Ron Paul understands the 10th amendment, although he has occasionally voted outside of that principle on this, Rand Paul does not get the 10th as it relates to this), Israel (Rand isn't as bad with this as the neocons, but he would clearly defend Israel at the very least if they get attacked, and would possibly "Defend" them under more questionable conditions, Ron Paul is a noninterventionist) exc.

Again, you're simply citing differences in strategy, not differences in beliefs. Moderating some of the more unpopular positions taken by Ron in order to broaden the number of voters willing to support him is perfectly rational and says very little/nothing about his personal views on these issues.

As someone who's been involved in numerous political campaigns, I assure you that politicians very often say things they don't mean. I hope this doesn't come as a shock.

 

[Federico]

Regarding Ron and Rand, Ron only talks about Rand when someone brings him up anyway, and then he ducks the questions. I think he knows Rand isn't as close to Ron as people here are saying, but nonetheless supports Rand and doesn't want to hurt his chances.

fyp

Believe it or not, pure high-test libertarianism of the sort found on mises.org is deeply unpopular with the American electorate. In order to have a strong chance of becoming President, Rand must distance himself from some of the positions taken by Ron, and Ron likely knows this.

 

[Christian Liberty]

You don't talk to his son about politics that much (read: ever), so I don't see how you could really know that Rand doesn't agree with him 99% of the time.

oh, wait



It's worthwhile to point out how badly confused you've become here; you say he is "clearly" a moderate interventionist, but I dispute this statement. That he refuses to take a pure non-interventionist stance is easily attributable to his Presidential aspirations; Ron already tried (and failed) with this strategy, so Rand is triangulating in an attempt to broaden the appeal of Ron's views. It's also flat wrong to say that he doesn't want to get rid of the bases and Guantanamo Bay; it's simply infeasible for a serious (R) contender to publicly take those positions.



Again, you're simply citing differences in strategy, not differences in beliefs. Moderating some of the more unpopular positions taken by Ron in order to broaden the number of voters willing to support him is perfectly rational and says very little/nothing about his personal views on these issues.

As someone who's been involved in numerous political campaigns, I assure you that politicians very often say things they don't mean. I hope this doesn't come as a shock.

fyp

Believe it or not, pure high-test libertarianism of the sort found on mises.org is deeply unpopular with the American electorate. In order to have a strong chance of becoming President, Rand must distance himself from some of the positions taken by Ron, and Ron likely knows this.

I'm just going off of what Rand actually says. If you want to believe that Rand is just lying and is actually more libertarian than he's saying he is, that's great. But you could claim that about everyone. I don't specifically make this assumption for Rand just because he's Ron's son.

Is it possible? Sure. Anything's possible. Am I going to vote for Rand? So far yes, because his record isn't as good as Ron's but its still better than anyone else by a sufficient margin that I'm willing to give him a shot.

 

[Federico]

I'm just going off of what Rand actually says. If you want to believe that Rand is just lying and is actually more libertarian than he's saying he is, that's great. But you could claim that about everyone. I don't specifically make this assumption for Rand just because he's Ron's son.

You ought to. The fact that he's Ron's son is significant.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Well, I'm convinced. It's in a movie, therefore my argument is invalid.

Ron had a 0% chance of becoming President. Rand has a non-0% chance. Part of the reason for this is his willingness to disassociate himself from some of the more questionable fringe elements that support Ron. I love Tom Woods, but he belongs to that fringe.

If Rand disassociates himself from questionable, fringe elements that supported Ron, why did he hire Jack Hunter? Jack Hunter, Chris Hightower, CRA, and a rehash of the newsletter controversy. All of those will be discussed repeatedly in 2015/2016. They'll probably bring up that dumb neck-step thing, too. Also, why does Rand stick his foot in his mouth with comments like the 'couldn't get any gayer' quip? That'll be replayed if he makes it to the general.

Let me see if I understand you correctly - having the most successful libertarian of our generation become President would be "an unmitigated disaster from our perspective," while having him become completely discredited and lose the influence he's worked so hard to obtain would be "a major victory for freedom."

This seems backwards to me.

Ron Paul was more successful as a libertarian than Rand.

Rand has disavowed the libertarian label repeatedly, and his stances now cannot be reasonably said to be libertarian. In fact, they're arguably less libertarian than Gary Johnson or Bob Barr, who could hardly be described as advocates of anarchy.

If Rand continues to moderate literally every stance of libertarianism he has and becomes president, he'll have done so on a platform that is decidedly not libertarian. Having non-libertarian ideas associated with libertarianism is something I'd very easily call an unmitigated disaster from our perspective. Additionally, once elected on a non-libertarian platform, how can you reasonably expect him to turn on everything he said and become an extremist once in the White House? History shows it works in the other direction, that he would be even less libertarian than he will be during the campaign, and by a very large degree.

 

[Federico]

Well, I'm convinced. It's in a movie, therefore my argument is invalid.

+1, glad you see things my way.

If Rand disassociates himself from questionable, fringe elements that supported Ron, why did he hire Jack Hunter? Jack Hunter, Chris Hightower, CRA, and a rehash of the newsletter controversy. All of those will be discussed repeatedly in 2015/2016. They'll probably bring up that dumb neck-step thing, too. Also, why does Rand stick his foot in his mouth with comments like the 'couldn't get any gayer' quip? That'll be replayed if he makes it to the general.

I agree that these were missteps. Not saying he's perfect, just saying the strategy should be pretty clear.

Ron Paul was more successful as a libertarian than Rand.

I guess it depends on how we're defining success. I agree that there are reasonable interpretations of it by which one could say that Ron was more successful than Rand, but I hope you'd agree that there are other reasonable metrics by which Rand is blowing Ron out of the water already, and has the potential to go even further.

Rand has disavowed the libertarian label repeatedly, and his stances now cannot be reasonably said to be libertarian. In fact, they're arguably less libertarian than Gary Johnson or Bob Barr, who could hardly be described as advocates of anarchy.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong in saying that he's disavowed the libertarian label repeatedly. I listened to a Steve Deace podcast after the recent meeting with Rand/Cruz and all the Iowa evangelical pastors, and he said that Rand showed a lot of balls calling himself a libertarian in front of that crowd. If he's willing to do so there, it stands to reason that he'd be willing to do so in other places that are much less overtly hostile to the word.

If Rand continues to moderate literally every stance of libertarianism he has and becomes president, he'll have done so on a platform that is decidedly not libertarian.

I think that's at least debatable. "Libertarian" isn't a binary distinction imo, it's a sliding scale. If he's at least more libertarian than any President in recent history, I'd consider that a victory.

Having non-libertarian ideas associated with libertarianism is something I'd very easily call an unmitigated disaster from our perspective.

Why?

Additionally, once elected on a non-libertarian platform, how can you reasonably expect him to turn on everything he said and become an extremist once in the White House? History shows it works in the other direction, that he would be even less libertarian than he will be during the campaign, and by a very large degree.

To be clear, I agree with you here. I'm definitely not expecting Rand to run or govern as an "extremist" in the sense that most of the people on these boards would mean. I am expecting him to be more libertarian than any major US politician in (at the very least) the past 50 years.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I'm pretty sure you're wrong in saying that he's disavowed the libertarian label repeatedly.

I can't get to the actual link right now, but Rand said he didn't want to wear the "albatross" of the libertarian label.

He also said he didn't advocate running around naked and stoned, and followed that up by stating that he is not a libertarian.

 

[Federico]

I can't get to the actual link right now, but Rand said he didn't want to wear the "albatross" of the libertarian label.

That was in 2010. Things have changed a lot since then.

He also said he didn't advocate running around naked and stoned, and followed that up by stating that he is not a libertarian.

The exact quote was this: "I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot. I’m not a Libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican. I’m a constitutional conservative."

It's true that he's not in the Libertarian party, not sure what's controversial about that. In the exact quote you're attacking, he used the adjective "libertarian" to describe himself. Capitalization matters.

 

[cajuncocoa]

That was in 2010. Things have changed a lot since then.



The exact quote was this: "I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot. I’m not a Libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican. I’m a constitutional conservative."

It's true that he's not in the Libertarian party, not sure what's controversial about that. In the exact quote you're attacking, he used the adjective "libertarian" to describe himself.

First of all, I am not "attacking", nor did I say there was anything controversial about either of the two quotes. Second, whether these things were said 3 years ago or yesterday, they serve as proof that Rand has indeed disavowed the libertarian label at least twice.

 

[Federico]

First of all, I am not "attacking", nor did I say there was anything controversial about either of the two quotes. Second, whether these things were said 3 years ago or yesterday, they serve as proof that Rand has indeed disavowed the libertarian label at least twice.

No, this is wrong. As I just pointed out, Rand actually embraced the libertarian label in the very next sentence of the quote where you're accusing him of disavowing it. As I said, capitalization matters - "libertarian" and "Libertarian" do not mean the same thing. Rand isn't a Libertarian, he's a libertarian Republican.

 

[cajuncocoa]

No, this is wrong. As I just pointed out, Rand actually embraced the libertarian label in the very next sentence of the quote where you're accusing him of disavowing it. As I said, capitalization matters - "libertarian" and "Libertarian" do not mean the same thing. Rand isn't a Libertarian, he's a libertarian Republican.

But then there's still that quote from 2010.....

 

[Federico]

But then there's still that quote from 2010.....

Correct, but the initial claim in question was that "Rand has disavowed the libertarian label repeatedly." If all you've got is one line from 2010, then this assertion is unsupported. Furthermore, as I've already mentioned, Rand was much less popular/powerful in 2010, and he had less ability to manipulate public opinion, but was instead more of a slave to it. Thus it is easy to see why he would have disavowed an unpopular label then. The fact that he's embracing it now strongly suggests it's how he felt all along.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Correct, but the initial claim in question was that "Rand has disavowed the libertarian label repeatedly." If all you've got is one line from 2010, then this assertion is unsupported. Furthermore, as I've already mentioned, Rand was much less popular/powerful in 2010, and he had less ability to manipulate public opinion, but was instead more of a slave to it. Thus it is easy to see why he would have disavowed an unpopular label then. The fact that he's embracing it now strongly suggests it's how he felt all along.

If that explanation works for you, go for it. I'm not going to spend the afternoon arguing with you about it.

 

[Federico]

If that explanation works for you, go for it. I'm not going to spend the afternoon arguing with you about it.

If that explanation doesn't work for you, then there's something wrong with you.

 

[Sam I am]

Based on what I heard about this Jack Hunter guy...

'

Maybe you can go watch some his videos and read some of his blogs for yourself.

Here's his YouTube channel

http://www.youtube.com/user/southernavenger

 

[cajuncocoa]

If that explanation doesn't work for you, then there's something wrong with you.

LOL...what a pompous attitude you have. First you don't believe that Rand has disavowed the libertarian label, and then when you're shown to be wrong, you construct a reason why it's not still true based on nothing but conjecture. Like I said, if that explanation works for you, go for it....but unless you can back it up with something concrete, it's pretty meaningless. What difference does it make what Rand calls himself anyway?

Now go argue with yourself if you're so bored.

 

[truthsaga]

He didn't quit, he was fired. Nobody ever is "fired" in Washington, they always "quit."

And Tom Woods has said everything controversial that Hunter has and more. I love the guy but you have no understanding of how politics works if you think he'd be a good person to have on Rand's official payroll.

I enjoy Tom Woods blog, videos, and books. So, if you have read any of his writings - he is truthful in the matter of describing historical events which can be easily put into 30 second bits of how he is a racist. Example, MLK calling for government action to become equal (I believe that is from 33 questions book), Lincoln, Nullification, and many other topics where Tom makes a great point. The media makes great hit pieces, not known for great research and new reporting.

 

[LibertyEagle]

They're already going to use it against him, and by proxy, bring up the newsletters. In fact, most articles about Jack also included the newsletter issue. I really don't see a good reason not to go 'full retard,' drop the appeasement crap, and just go with Tom Woods as an attack dog. Tom is the major league version of Jack Hunter, who can both defend secession and reach out to conservatives far better than Hunter can/could.

I will never understand why Ron allowed Benton to run Woods out of Ron's political operation. Tom's good enough to write Ron's books, produce large swaths of Ron's homeschooling curriculum, and makes connections to the Steve Deaces of the world far better than anyone in Paul Inc, but Woods is somehow persona non grata. Yeah, that's logical.

Rand can't just pretend that Jack never existed. That horse left the barn already. Well, he could, but that would be bad strategy. At best, he can go with Woods. At worst, he can moderate even further, disavow secession, say Lincoln was awesome, and further abandon libertarianism. The media and special interests are going to do this on every issue, too. At some point, he's going to reveal himself as a complete squish who will say and do everything he can to win; which would be an unmitigated disaster from our perspective. Or, he'll take a stand on firm philosophical backing and let the chips fall where they may. This would be a major victory for freedom, and still allows for wiggle room rhetorically.

Those 2 issues are lightyears apart. A newsletter coming out under Ron's name is quite a bit different than an employee's antics in his youth. Rand terminated him; that will satisfy most anyone who liked Rand even a little bit.

 

[LibertyEagle]

No, this is wrong. As I just pointed out, Rand actually embraced the libertarian label in the very next sentence of the quote where you're accusing him of disavowing it. As I said, capitalization matters - "libertarian" and "Libertarian" do not mean the same thing. Rand isn't a Libertarian, he's a libertarian Republican.

Agreed.