Why Rand Paul needs to be attacked by (some) libertarians

[fisharmor]

Now, tell me from a realistic perspective--what the hell was he supposed to do?

He was supposed to support his own father while his father was still in the race.
"There's little chance I'll actually get the nomination" is not equivalent to dropping out of the race. It is further utterly destroyed as an argument with the statement "I am trying to get as many delegates to the convention in order to have a positive effect there".

I don't like Rand because he follows NRA mentality. Don't settle for a win today when we could have a win tomorrow.
If Rand had spoken out during the convention, perhaps more attention would have been brought to the fact that people were getting shut out, shouted down, cut off, and kicked out.

While Ron's supporters were having their fucking hips broken by pigs following establishment Republican's directives, Rand consciously chose to go support those establishment Republicans.

He was supposed to straighten his spine and speak out against the rotten things that were going on.
This isn't about education. It's about right and wrong.

What is Rand going to deliver? His election to the presidency?

How does that dial back the police state?
How does that reorganize state conventions?
How does that hold that pig accountable?
How does that get people to kick out the rotten leaders?

One of the things Ron educated us on - and this is something apparently all the Rand lovers have missed - is that in order to make a change on the national level, you have to change the conversation first.

These people don't play fair. Fuck, I thought if anyone would know this by now, it would be us. They know exactly what the constitution says, they know exactly what the state convention rules are, they know exactly how this is supposed to work... and they ignore it regularly. These people are not stupid. They know exactly who Rand is and exactly what he is capable of, and they're not letting him anywhere near the nomination.

Even if he does manage to wolf-in-sheep's-clothing his way into power, what the fuck goes through your heads that makes you believe that Rand has a snowball's chance in hell of doing ANYTHING magical once he lies his way into the presidency?

Rand is on a fool's errand. If you think he's just going to get into the presidency in 2016 and then change everything, well, lots of people have lots of 75 cent bullets that say otherwise.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Even if he does manage to wolf-in-sheep's-clothing his way into power, what the fuck goes through your heads that makes you believe that Rand has a snowball's chance in hell of doing ANYTHING magical once he lies his way into the presidency?

Rand is on a fool's errand. If you think he's just going to get into the presidency in 2016 and then change everything, well, lots of people have lots of 75 cent bullets that say otherwise.

*applause!* and +rep for the entire post.

A thought to consider about the last two lines: If Rand gets the nomination, and if he wins, he will immediately have to start getting ready for re-election in 2020.

Meaning: don't expect any significant change in the first 4 years of a Rand Paul administration.

 

[acptulsa]

He was supposed to straighten his spine and speak out against the rotten things that were going on.
This isn't about education. It's about right and wrong.

What is Rand going to deliver? His election to the presidency?

How does that dial back the police state?
How does that reorganize state conventions?
How does that hold that pig accountable?
How does that get people to kick out the rotten leaders?

That remains to be seen, my friend. Honestly. Because I'll see your truth and raise you one. It isn't just about right and wrong. It's about doing something about it. And Ron Paul will be the first to tell you that he'll take the hit if it gets us closer to where we need to be.

One of the things Ron educated us on - and this is something apparently all the Rand lovers have missed - is that in order to make a change on the national level, you have to change the conversation first.

These people don't play fair. Fuck, I thought if anyone would know this by now, it would be us. They know exactly what the constitution says, they know exactly what the state convention rules are, they know exactly how this is supposed to work... and they ignore it regularly. These people are not stupid. They know exactly who Rand is and exactly what he is capable of, and they're not letting him anywhere near the nomination.

Ah, but they will let him have the nomination, and they'll do it just to shut us up, if they think he can't win the general election. And once he has the Bully Pulpit and the Unprecedented Powers that our enemies have been concentrating in the Executive, he can do lots of interesting things. The Constitution itself declares the president to be Commander in Chief, and the C in C can do wonders for us constitutionally. Furthermore, if he selects a trustworthy running mate, that seventy-five cent bullet won't do anything but rally the people behind a martyr.

If I made it sound like this would be easy, it would be a lock, it guaratees results, Rand Paul will be in no danger throughout, we don't have our work cut out for us, or that this will clear up your acne and halitosis, I am sorry. I thought I made myself more clear than that. I thought I said that this hard, risky, rocky road was our best hope for peace and prosperity in our time. But if you have a better possibility, I'm all ears.

But thank you for giving Rand some credit. I, too, think that the moment it looks like he has half as good a shot at winning the general election as his father did, Murdoch and his Fox News will immediately begin trying to torpedo Rand's nomination 24/7. Like you, I do trust him that much.

There's too much at stake for me to throw in the towel, no matter how the odds are stacked against us. I won't let it be said that I did nothing.

A thought to consider about the last two lines: If Rand gets the nomination, and if he wins, he will immediately have to start getting ready for re-election in 2020.

Meaning: don't expect any significant change in the first 4 years of a Rand Paul administration.

I do not agree. I have seen a lot of administrations in my time, and there's one thing I'm sure of: The only way a president gets reelected in spite of his record is if the opposition party refuses (as they did in 2012) to nominate anyone who could possibly be considered an improvement in any way. Those who preside over an improvement in the circumstances of We, the People, or those who can demonstrate that they did the right things and were sabotaged (Carter was unable to make that case convincingly), get reelected.

Rand Paul knows he had better do some good in those first four years or he'll be skunked by another Democrat chock full of empty, false promises of Hope For Change. And he's right, too.

No, I don't believe you. Not for a second. Even if he's the false-faced, self-serving puppet you think he is, he knows better than to maintain this unpopular, untenable status quo. But, you know, feel free to call yourself a libertarian and attack him. As Mr. Drake said, it lends him--and all of us--credibility.

"You can't beat an administration by attacking it. You have to show some plan of improving on it."--Will Rogers 1924

Note that date--1924. The Democrats attacked Coolidge. But Coolidge got government out of our way, and we used that freedom to create the Roaring Twenties. No, Rand Paul's best shot at reelection is to do as much good in four years as he possibly can.

 

[jmdrake]

Good, thoughtful original post.

I believe elected officials need to be held accountable and can never be given the benefit of the doubt. We’re paying their salaries, and they have a rotten track record. Give credit where it’s due, but always be vigilant. I don’t get these people that think Rand should be put on a pedestal or that any questionable move he makes has got to be part of some brilliant scheme.

Thank you. I try to consider all possibilities including "Rand really believes everything he says" to "the stuff Rand says that sounds off the wall is part of a brilliant scheme" to "the stuff Rand says that sounds off the wall is part of a not so brilliant scheme."

Agreed. Distrusted him ever since when he bowed down to Mitt.

My watershed moment happened in 2010. I don't know if you were following Rand then. He and Ron were interviewed by a journalist in Kentucky. In that interview Rand made it sound like he endorsed testimony extracted from torture. That gave me a stark choice. Either I could find some explanation other than "He really meant that" for what he said, or I'd have to stop supporting him. It's one thing to say "We'll torture someone to stop a nuke." I think that scenario is bogus, but at least it's understandable. It's another thing to say "We'll torture someone, and then convict him based on that tortured confession". When you do that you're getting into Stalin territory. As I've explained earlier in this thread, after reading up on the UCMJ, learning that testimony from torture isn't allowed in a military tribunal anyway, I figured Rand was pulling people's legs. Well if he can do that on torture, why not on Romney? I will fully admit that I could be wrong. I sincerely hope I'm not.

 

[robert68]

Look, Rand had Ron as his FATHER.... do you really think he doesn't get it? He is just better at playing the game. At least a freakin' hope so....

George Bush Sr. and close advisors to him during his Presidency like Brent Scowcroft, opposed the US going to war with Iraq after 9/11. His son and President disagreed and waged the war.

 

[Thor]

George Bush Sr. and close advisors to him during his Presidency like Brent Scowcroft, opposed the US going to war with Iraq after 9/11. His son and President disagreed and waged the war.

I really don't care about what happened with the Bush boys. IMHO Bush senior is not the same as Ron Paul when it comes to raising a child up to understand values (whatever those values may be) and passing the torch.

I agree Rand is his own man and can play his own game, obviously.

The point is, if anyone is going to fully grasp and follow in Ron's footsteps, Rand is a pretty darn good candidate, even though he might have a different tactic.

 

[ronpaulfollower999]

*applause!* and +rep for the entire post.

A thought to consider about the last two lines: If Rand gets the nomination, and if he wins, he will immediately have to start getting ready for re-election in 2020.

Meaning: don't expect any significant change in the first 4 years of a Rand Paul administration.

So do you think Ron would've been a one term president? I don't think a Ron Paul administration would've being any different than a Rand Paul administration, considering they'd both have to go through Congress to get anything done.

 

[dinosaur]

So do you think Ron would've been a one term president? I don't think a Ron Paul administration would've being any different than a Rand Paul administration, considering they'd both have to go through Congress to get anything done.

I think that there are many here who would never have supported Ron in the first place if they thought that he had a good chance at being elected to an office with real power.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Note that date--1924. The Democrats attacked Coolidge. But Coolidge got government out of our way, and we used that freedom to create the Roaring Twenties. No, Rand Paul's best shot at reelection is to do as much good in four years as he possibly can.

I agree with this. I can easily envision Rand taking the bull by the horns and going all in attempting to turn this country around. If he's bold and successful he'll be rewarded like Coolidge was in 1924 and Reagan in 1984. The winning formula for Rand will be to turn the economy around by getting government out of the way, like you said, and instill confidence back in Americans. If played correctly, I believe liberty-minded Republicans could debilitate the Democratic party for decades.

 

[acptulsa]

So do you think Ron would've been a one term president? I don't think a Ron Paul administration would've being any different than a Rand Paul administration, considering they'd both have to go through Congress to get anything done.

Ron said he wouldn't have run for reelection. So, yes. And as Commander in Chief, and having promised to just 'march 'em home again', I believe he would have made a huge difference. Perhaps by right now already.

I agree with this. I can easily envision Rand taking the bull by the horns and going all in attempting to turn this country around. If he's bold and successful he'll be rewarded like Coolidge was in 1924 and Reagan in 1984. The winning formula for Rand will be to turn the economy around by getting government out of the way, like you said, and instill confidence back in Americans. If played correctly, I believe liberty-minded Republicans could debilitate the Democratic party for decades.

What's more, even if the bankers retaliate by trashing the economy as hard as they can, I think Rand Paul (with a lot of help from us) could avoid Jimmy Carter's fate and win reelection--if he's moving decisively. We just might be able to convince them to keep taking the bitter medicine until completely cured.

But, of course, all of this is contingent on us quietly but effectively paving the way for him with independent voters and the tens of millions of disaffected Democrats. I don't think we can do it without causing the powers that be and their pet pit bulls in the Mainstream Mafia turning on us at the first sign that we're succeeding. And then we get to work similar magic to get him the nomination.

Good thing we were practicing during the last two cycles, isn't it?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I think that there are many here who would never have supported Ron in the first place if they thought that he had a good chance at being elected to an office with real power.

That's an incredible statement. Especially considering how many people here actively promoted Ron Paul every chance they got to people who were by and large political retards. Yes, I'm sure many people wouldn't have supported his presidency. They just made signs, banners, phone banked, canvassed, maxed out to his campaign, and tried to educate people who probably couldn't spell 'constitution' for the hell of it.

 

[cajuncocoa]

So do you think Ron would've been a one term president? I don't think a Ron Paul administration would've being any different than a Rand Paul administration, considering they'd both have to go through Congress to get anything done.

Obviously it would have taken a lot of change for Ron to even be accepted as GOP nominee, let alone president. Without that, things don't get off the ground, unless you're pretending to be something you're really not (pandering). Ron didn't do that.

I think that there are many here who would never have supported Ron in the first place if they thought that he had a good chance at being elected to an office with real power.

Sadly, this is obviously true.

 

[cajuncocoa]

That's an incredible statement. Especially considering how many people here actively promoted Ron Paul every chance they got to people who were by and large political retards. Yes, I'm sure many people wouldn't have supported his presidency. They just made signs, banners, phone banked, canvassed, maxed out to his campaign, and tried to educate people who probably couldn't spell 'constitution' for the hell of it.

I understand what he means. After all, we have no way of knowing that everyone here on RPF was donating, making signs, phone banking, etc. It's obvious to me, considering some of the negative comments that have been made by some about Ron, that some never supported him in the first place.

 

[TheGrinch]

*applause!* and +rep for the entire post.

A thought to consider about the last two lines: If Rand gets the nomination, and if he wins, he will immediately have to start getting ready for re-election in 2020.

Meaning: don't expect any significant change in the first 4 years of a Rand Paul administration.

Sorry, I respect your convictions cajun, but go do something else if you don't think this will help enact change, because I see a lot of good Rand is doing, so no, I don't think election is the end, it's the means in the current system for any real gains for liberty in our lifetime, as we work towards more.

So please, just stop unless you think he's jsut selling out for the wrong reasons, and not playing the game for the right ones... Fine if you don't think it will work, but I'm getting awful sick of those not on board trying to convince those who are (unless he gives us enough reasons not to) to not be.

You don't know any better than I do what a Rand presidency would mean, but he's done enough good for me to still have faith that maybe we can actually accomplish something, rather than chasing these pipe-dreams that we can convince enough Americans to be lock-step with our ideology to do it the purist way. America is not ready for that yet, so I'm going to take what we can get.

If you're not on board with people at least trying where ever we can, then just sit back and wait for the collapse to tell everyone I told you so..

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Pretty optimistic analysis jm. I hope you are correct. I share fisharmor's skepticism on what can acutally be accomplished by the president. I was hopeful for Ron Paul's election because I believed he could use the SOTUs etc. to actively change peoples' minds on what the role of government ought to be. He could bring attention to the issues that no one wants to talk about, and he could have done it in a way that unites democrats and republicans alike. Or, anyone under the policital spectrum for that matter. It makes no difference to me who the president is if Rand Paul becomes president but doesn't use the power he has to speak on the fraud, waste, mismanagement, and downright unconsitutionality of a lot of government spending. It makes no difference who the president is if when he becomes president he doesn't speak on our undying allegiance to Israel. The rhetoric he chooses to address the problem should be up to him, so long as it's truthful i.e. we're broke, they're sovereign, they can defend themselves etc. What, is he supposed to veto every bill? He needs to actively change the mindsets of the average voter. Explain why this system is unsustainable and use examples of empires past. Explain about the MIC, big pharmaceutical lobbying, etc. Explain Israel. Most people don't know about these things, and if they did, it would change overnight.

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. - Henry Ford

Simply getting elected doesn't change anything in itself.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I understand what he means. After all, we have no way of knowing that everyone here on RPF was donating, making signs, phone banking, etc. It's obvious to me, considering some of the negative comments that have been made by some about Ron, that some never supported him in the first place.

Reread his post. He said, "I think that there are many here who would never have supported Ron in the first place if they thought that he had a good chance at being elected to an office with real power." implying that those who have reservations about Rand Paul simply have these reservations because he has an actual shot at becoming president. For one, I reject the notion that Ron Paul did not have an active shot at becoming president. For two, I reject the notion that I, or anyone else that I've seen, who he is apparently referring to, have reservations about Rand Paul simply because he has a shot at getting the nomination. I agree with you in your post, but he was making a different point entirely.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Sorry, I respect your convictions cajun, but go do something else if you don't think this will help enact change, because I see a lot of good Rand is doing, so no, I don't think election is the end, it's the means in the current system for any real gains for liberty in our lifetime, as we work towards more.

So please, just stop unless you think he's jsut selling out for the wrong reasons, and not playing the game for the right ones... Fine if you don't think it will work, but I'm getting awful sick of those not on board trying to convince those who are (unless he gives us enough reasons not to) to not be.

You don't know any better than I do what a Rand presidency would mean, but he's done enough good for me to still have faith that maybe we can actually accomplish something, rather than chasing these pipe-dreams that we can convince enough Americans to be lock-step with our ideology to do it the purist way. America is not ready for that yet, so I'm going to take what we can get.

If you're not on board with people at least trying where ever we can, then just sit back and wait for the collapse to tell everyone I told you so..

My post had nothing to do with Rand "selling out"....it was more about whether the general public is ready for the changes we would like Rand to make, and whether he will be willing to "unleash" those changes on these unsuspecting people as he thinks about a 2nd term.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Reread his post. He said, "I think that there are many here who would never have supported Ron in the first place if they thought that he had a good chance at being elected to an office with real power." implying that those who have reservations about Rand Paul simply have these reservations because he has an actual shot at becoming president. For one, I reject the notion that Ron Paul did not have an active shot at becoming president. For two, I reject the notion that I, or anyone else that I've seen, who he is apparently referring to, have reservations about Rand Paul simply because he has a shot at getting the nomination. I agree with you in your post, but he was making a different point entirely.

If he meant it that way, it's a very curious statement to make. Hopefully he will clarify.

 

[Thor]

My post had nothing to do with Rand "selling out"....it was more about whether the general public is ready for the changes we would like Rand to make, and whether he will be willing to "unleash" those changes on these unsuspecting people as he thinks about a 2nd term.

And if he isn't elected for a second term? Even if he has "restrained" himself in the first term? Then it is over.

I say, if he gets elected, go all out and start cleaning up right away in the first term (as much as the President can), so the positive results show themselves before the second term election. Otherwise, the window might open and close before you get to throw anything out.

 

[TheGrinch]

My post had nothing to do with Rand "selling out"....it was more about whether the general public is ready for the changes we would like Rand to make, and whether he will be willing to "unleash" those changes on these unsuspecting people as he thinks about a 2nd term.

I know your post had nothing to do with him selling out, my point was to please stop with saying "it won't work" unless you think he is selling out.

I mean, you're right, he cannot do this all on his own, we have any more battles to wage, and I'm happy to say that one of my good friends (one of the cheated Athens delegates last go round) just got a chairman position here in GA, so I'm not above working locally for change that may be more possible.

But Rand has not shown me that he's just going to hold back on everything he wants to do jsut so he can have a second term. I just have no indication that he wants the presidency for any other reason than it is the most influential and powerful position for him to enact change and make way for others.

Like I said, all indications are that getting elected is a means for Rand, not the ends.