Lew Rockwell's take on Ron in Iowa

[nikcers]

Then you should shut your trap about all of it....don't say anything if you can't name the source.

Most intelligent post of this thread.

 

[hells_unicorn]

The country is no different today than it was the day Rand won his Senate seat.

I didn't realize the whole country voted for who would be senator in Kentucky. The more you know...

Rand ran a campaign designed to win in 2010, and for whatever reason he decided to chuck that blueprint in the garbage in 2016 and run a "different" kind of campaign that was doomed to failure.

What was different about his 2010 vs. 2016 strategy? I'm talking specifics, not just you yammering in lofty abstract notions that no other human being can comprehend. And even if we can come up with a few differences, we also have to recognize that he was not running against a billionaire demagogue with oodles of free media exposure. Had Rand ran the same exact campaign this time around, to the point of even using the name Conway in the debates, you'd probably still be creaming your pants to the sound of Trump's douche-bag New York accent.

Rand and his staff are 100% to blame for the current state of the campaign.

Maybe they should hire you, you seem to know everything.

Whether he had Ron campaign with him or not is frankly beside the point.

Anything other than Trump's involvement in this cycle is besides the point. You know why? Because every single outlet, even the alternative media, can't shut about him, nor can you it seems.

If he had run a good campaign he wouldn't have needed Ron and having Ron attached to the sort of garbage campaign that he did run wasn't going to make any difference.

Still no specifics on why his campaign is garbage, and I doubt I will ever get any.

 

[erowe1]

Most intelligent post of this thread.

Even if that were true, you wouldn't have been able to recognize it.

 

[erowe1]

What was different about his 2010 vs. 2016 strategy?

What the guy with the Vinland flag is talking about is the fact that Rand in 2016 tried more to reach out to nonwhites, thus betraying white people.

 

[rg17]

Lew Rockwell is a traitor to the liberty movement!

 

[RonPaulMall]

What was different about his 2010 vs. 2016 strategy? I'm talking specifics, not just you yammering in lofty abstract notions that no other human being can comprehend. And even if we can come up with a few differences, we also have to recognize that he was not running against a billionaire demagogue with oodles of free media exposure. Had Rand ran the same exact campaign this time around, to the point of even using the name Conway in the debates, you'd probably still be creaming your pants to the sound of Trump's douche-bag New York accent.

2010 Rand ran as a Constitutional Conservative. He embraced the Tea Party. He ruthlessly attacked Obama and the GOP Establishment.

2016 ran as a "different" kind of Republican. He made no attempt to associate with the Tea Party or the Anti-Establishment sentiment that was even stronger this year than it was in 2010. He spent more time attacking Trump and Cruz than he did Jeb and Hillary.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Lew Rockwell is a traitor to the liberty movement!

LOLOL Lew Rockwell was part of the libertarian/liberty movement way before it attracted anyone but the "finge-y" Rothbardians, Objectivists, etc. I'm going to guess you're under 30 years old, yes? You have a LOT of catching up to do. Lew has been a friend and trusted adviser to RP for several decades now.

 

[TaftFan]

This election is about being non-PC and extreme. Ron Paul is a huge asset and it's a shame he wasn't deployed sooner.

 

[Matt Collins]

Lew Rockwell is a traitor to the liberty movement!

I wouldn't go that far but he has done some damage to the movement in this cycle.

 

[hells_unicorn]

2010 Rand ran as a Constitutional Conservative. He embraced the Tea Party. He ruthlessly attacked Obama and the GOP Establishment.

2016 ran as a "different" kind of Republican. He made no attempt to associate with the Tea Party or the Anti-Establishment sentiment that was even stronger this year than it was in 2010. He spent more time attacking Trump and Cruz than he did Jeb and Hillary.

What's Obama running for again this year? He's been on Hillary like white on rice from day one, and his poll numbers dropped before he attacked Trump, but after Trump entered the race. Trump is the GOP establishment, and Cruz is a fake dissenter, so attacking them is attacking the GOP establishment. Jeb is a non-factor at this point, and has largely been so for the past 4 months, you don't punch down. The Tea Party is largely a non-factor now and has been since the whole ISIS thing was promoted in the media, Tea Party people today are indistinguishable from Neo-cons at present, and the so-called Anti-Establishment is made up primarily of warmongers that wish to carpet-bomb the Mid-East.

Allow me to redirect my question, since it's clear that the divergence between Rand's 2 campaigns is less one of reality and more one of your own perception. What is anti-establishment about Cruz and Trump other than that they act like pompous asses and shout at people? I'm looking at the similarities in policy between Trump/Cruz and Ron Paul and I'm coming up with zilch.

It seems to me that the problem isn't so much that Rand is running a bad campaign so much as you think he's running a bad campaign because you identify more with Trump's fascistic "top-down" approach to politics than having actual freedom. The "different" kind of Republican was meant to make an appeal to minority voters, apparently you seem to have a problem with minorities as well, which puts you more in the Trump camp than the liberty camp, I fear.

I wouldn't go that far but he has done some damage to the movement in this cycle.

Just this cycle? Try all of the last 3 cycles! Lew has been an utter loose cannon from day one, though many of his underlings (DiLorenzo and Woods) only became liabilities within the past couple years.

 

[Natural Citizen]

LOLOL Lew Rockwell was part of the libertarian/liberty movement way before it attracted anyone but the "finge-y" Rothbardians, Objectivists, etc. I'm going to guess you're under 30 years old, yes? You have a LOT of catching up to do. Lew has been a friend and trusted adviser to RP for several decades now.

Heh. True. I sometimes wonder how many people here were actually around and pounding pavement back in the 80s when there wasn't an Internet like we have today. Give a feller a rope and he thinks he's a cowboy. Same thing with the Internet. Give him a keyboard and he thinks he has rode the bull. Whackobirds.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Just this cycle? Try all of the last 3 cycles! Lew has been an utter loose cannon from day one, though many of his underlings (DiLorenzo and Woods) only became liabilities within the past couple years.

LOLOL You kids are comical. Used to be Benton's fault. Then it's Lew. People like to point fingers a lot, but ultimately RP had decidifer power in his campaigns. The buck stops with him. (except the blatantly corrupt conventions, debates, etc, but that's a different issue)

 

[hells_unicorn]

LOLOL You kids are comical. Used to be Benton's fault. Then it's Lew. People like to point fingers a lot, but ultimately RP had decidifer power in his campaigns. The buck stops with him. (except the blatantly corrupt conventions, debates, etc, but that's a different issue)

Never blamed Benton for anything other than maybe being stupid by voluntarily talking to the Feds, something no one should do. Also, I think I have a few years on you kiddo, just saying.

And yes, the buck did stop with Ron Paul, and while having Lew's baggage along for the ride was not the sole determination in him losing both his elections, I don't think helped at all.

 

[rg17]

LOLOL Lew Rockwell was part of the libertarian/liberty movement way before it attracted anyone but the "finge-y" Rothbardians, Objectivists, etc. I'm going to guess you're under 30 years old, yes? You have a LOT of catching up to do. Lew has been a friend and trusted adviser to RP for several decades now.

I'm only 17

 

[tonyaustin]

Then you should shut your trap about all of it....don't say anything if you can't name the source.

Let him speak. It is interesting to hear from people in the know like Matt rather than the loud mouths that believe in fairy tales that shout down anyone with a opinion. I am not saying you do that but it is the reason I rarely post here.

 

[erowe1]

Let him speak. It is interesting to hear from people in the know like Matt rather than the loud mouths that believe in fairy tales that shout down anyone with a opinion. I am not saying you do that but it is the reason I rarely post here.

You lost me at "like Matt."

Do you have a reason to believe he's in the know other than him telling you he is?

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

Having more money and better poll results would force the media to give Rand a bit more of a fair shake.

Yes the media hurt in 2012 but that wasn't the only reason Ron lost Iowa. There are always multiple factors at hand.

Yeah, no.... The negative media bias accounts for maybe 90% of the reason Ron and Rand have both suffered poor poll results... EVERYTHING else (you know, the stuff you claim is soooooo important) might account for 10%. Why don't you keep your negative comments to yourself and maybe in confidence to your "important" contacts instead of spreading them on public forums?? Your negativity is perhaps responsible for some loss of support, did you ever think of that??

My mother always used to say "if you can't find something nice to say don't say it at all". If only she were still around I'd have her give you a talking to...

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

I'm only 17

+rep for being here!!

 

[Jamesiv1]

Is all the doom and gloom talk because of the polls we all pretty much agree are bullshit?

I'm going to stick with Rand when he says the only poll that counts is the one where votes are cast.

 

[Suzanimal]

I'm only 17

Is that what the 17 stands for?