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

[dinosaur]

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

I meant that there is a huge subset of the Rand criticizers here who also also criticize political action in and of itself. My apologies to those who don't fall into this subset.

 

[cajuncocoa]

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.

I'm all for that!

 

[cajuncocoa]

I meant that there is a huge subset of the Rand criticizers here who also also criticize political action in and of itself. My apologies to those who don't fall into this subset.

OK, I see what you mean....you're speaking of those who have given up on the political process. I understand why they might feel that way, but (speaking only for myself) I haven't completely given up yet.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

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.

I'm optimistic in thinking that if he becomes president he can use the publicity/press to educate people about the real problems facing America. The whole world will be watching. If he does it right, a new enlightenment of sorts can occur. I am fearful of whether the banksters et. al [people with real power] would ever let that happen.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I meant that there is a huge subset of the Rand criticizers here who also also criticize political action in and of itself. My apologies to those who don't fall into this subset.

Ahh. I misunderstood your point. I apologize.

OK, I see what you mean....you're speaking of those who have given up on the political process. I understand why they might feel that way, but (speaking only for myself) I haven't completely given up yet.

Ditto. Though as time goes on I get more and more despaired.

 

[jmdrake]

//

 

[jmdrake]

I meant that there is a huge subset of the Rand criticizers here who also also criticize political action in and of itself. My apologies to those who don't fall into this subset.

Okay. But even with that disclaimer I'm not sure it's an accurate portrayal of what's happening. There are those who criticize political action, not because they don't want to be on the "winning side", but because they honestly don't believe it will do any good. And the shenanigans of the RNC (and DNC), with false claims of "the ayes have it" seem to confirm that sentiment. I remember my mom once asking my paternal grandmother who she was going to vote for and she said "Vote? They just pick who they want anyway." At the time I thought my grandma was just being "country" and "uninformed". Now...I'm not so sure. That's especially true in the age of electronic voting machines (and issue Republicans have all of a sudden "discovered" after Obama won 99% of the vote in some precincts). So while I still believe in political action, I understand the thought process of those who don't. See:

 

[jmdrake]

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.

True. Why do you think Tom Woods is barnstorming Iowa? Why do you think Ron Paul is starting (hopefully) a radio broadcast. The "educational campaign" must continue. In the best case scenario, Rand's growth in the GOP is mirrored by the growth of liberty thinking in the U.S. in general so that by 2016, even someone adopting Ron's rhetoric would have a shot at winning.

 

[dinosaur]

Okay. But even with that disclaimer I'm not sure it's an accurate portrayal of what's happening. There are those who criticize political action, not because they don't want to be on the "winning side", but because they honestly don't believe it will do any good.

The funny thing about political action is this: the more people abandon it because they don't think that it can do any good, the less likely it is to do any good.

 

[jmdrake]

The funny thing about political action is this: the more people abandon it because they don't think that it can do any good, the less likely it is to do any good.

No debate from me there. And those advocating against political action usually don't give a viable alternative. I'm just saying I'm not attributing a motive (they just don't want to win) to their position.

 

[dinosaur]

No debate from me there. And those advocating against political action usually don't give a viable alternative. I'm just saying I'm not attributing a motive (they just don't want to win) to their position.

If there is no motive, then why try to convince others not to participate in the political process either? I can understand not wanting to participate, and have been there myself, but the hostility towards people who are trying just doesn't make sense.

 

[Nirvikalpa]

We can split it. Or, you/we can edit it out of the OP and just start a new thread in HT

 

[sailingaway]

We can split it. Or, you/we can edit it out of the OP and just start a new thread in HT

I just did split it out, from the reported post. You're post crossed what I was doing, sorry!

 

[acptulsa]

Thanks, sailing. Sorry I digressed in the first paragraph of that one post, rather than burying the comment where it wouldn't be the first thing you saw... :o

 

[jmdrake]

We can split it. Or, you/we can edit it out of the OP and just start a new thread in HT

I just did split it out, from the reported post. You're post crossed what I was doing, sorry!

What? And make life (gasp) easy for mods?

Thanks sailing! But it looks like the entire OP got sent to HT. So for those who might read the first post in this thread and wonder what's going on, here's the OP without the HT part. (And sometime I'll have to compile a list of RPFJ (Ron Paul Forum Jargon).


Before I get flamed for saying Rand should be attacked, hear me out. In fact, don't just hear me out. Go to Netflicks and watch the movie The Hiding Place. It's a story about a family, the Ten Booms, that hid Jews during the holocaust.

One of the things the Ten Booms had to do was to get enough ration cards to buy extra food for the people hiding out at their house. Having extra ration cards, even without proof of anything else, could get you sent to a concentration camp. They had friends who distributed rations cards and worked out a deal to get more. But there was a catch. To keep the Nazis from getting suspicious, they had to beat up their own friends to make it look like a robbery.

Back in 2010, when it became apparent to me that Rand was operating in "stealth mode" (and yes I'm convinced that's what he's doing), I thought "would the ruse work if all liberty minded people rallied around Rand with the same level of blind devotion with which they rallied around Ron?" And I quickly came to the "no" conclusion.

Now, I admit I could be wrong about Rand. He could be co-opted and power hungry. He could simply be being misled. In either of those cases it's important for liberty minded folk to hold his feet to the fire in a way liberals did not hold Obama's feet to the fire.

Further, it's possible, even likely, that the Justin Raimondo's of the world aren't attacking Rand in order to help him "keep his cover" but rather because they just hate the teocon-like stuff he sometimes says and the endorsement of Romney. But from a strategic point of view....it doesn't matter. The Becks of the world will say "Rand is being attacked by people who attack me! The enemy of my enemy is my friend! I must come to his defense!" And I suspect Beck is playing a role too...but in order to successfully play a role you must.....play the role.

Rand took some flack from libertarians for going with the neo/teocons and putting a hold on Hagel. Now he's taking flack from some neo/teocons, and paleocons who want to court them, for voting to confirm Hagel. In 2016 none of that will matter. But in the dustup he had Beck "riding to his rescue" and now he has (some) libertarians who were doubting him feeling at least a little better. When Raimondo does what he feels he has to do (and what is ultimately in Rand's political best interest) it won't have as much sting as it might have had before. But it will continue to help Rand with the teocons. By 2016 (or before) people will have largely forgotten about the Hagel vote. (I sincerely doubt this will resonate like the Romney endorsement did.) Your average GOP voter probably still has no idea who Hagel is. Yes some "hardcore tecon freerepers" will remember, but there are more of us than there are of them.

All in all this was a good day for Rand Paul.

 

[PreDeadMan]

I gave lots of money and spread the message followed him on the media and debates told people about him had bumperstickers signs.... well now that he's out of politics and has pretty much hinted he's for the philosophy of voluntaryism see his fairwell speech well... i think politics is frankly a waste of time the only reason i visit this forum anymore is because there are people who are voluntaryists who post on here and i'm also curious as to what the hacks in DC are up to lol....

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

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.

Chris Rock got it wrong when he said the President is like our father to which we must obey. The President is more accurately the teacher for the nation, this is especially the case in the 21st century. Rand will excel in that role to such a degree the likes of which we have seldom seen. Nobody will convey the blessings of liberty to the masses more coherently and effectively.

 

[TheTexan]

Rand for President of Kentucky 2016

 

[cajuncocoa]

Chris Rock got it wrong when he said the President is like our father to which we must obey. The President is more accurately the teacher for the nation, this is especially the case in the 21st century. Rand will excel in that role to such a degree the likes of which we have seldom seen. Nobody will convey the blessings of liberty to the masses more coherently and effectively.

From your keyboard to God's ear! And I seriously mean that.

 

[acptulsa]

Thanks sailing! But it looks like the entire OP got sent to HT. So for those who might read the first post in this thread and wonder what's going on, here's the OP...

And for those confused about where the quote in post 21 came from...

Mr. Drake, as usual you have opened up a vitally important discussion for us in a remarkably healthy way.

I am one of those who has been saying for years that, if we had somehow miraculously overcome the Fox 'Don't nominate Ron Paul or we'll kick you out of the herd!!1!' propaganda and gotten him nominated there'd be a Republican in the White House right now, while even if we had voted for Romney down to the last libertarian man, woman and child it still wouldn't have been enough. And I still maintain that Murdoch knew all of this the whole time. I'm also here to tell you that we stand a very good chance of getting Rand the nomination, if he keeps up the good work, but the general election will be anything but a cakewalk.

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

You know what? I don't blame you. We needed that arrogant, posturing, Obamacare-inventing, Big Digging, tax hiking, domestic spying, drone loving asshole as leader of the free world like we needed to retain the hopeless, changeless, Monsanto-loving, citizen-assassinating asshole we've got and give him a second election and an excuse to wander around saying he has a 'mandate' to screw up. Now, tell me from a realistic perspective--what the hell was he supposed to do? Endorse the 'third party candidate of your choice' like Ron Paul did four years earlier? How well did that work out? Fact is, he probably got Johnson more votes using reverse psychology than he ever could have with a straight-faced, unqualified endorsement! You know how disgusted many people are with the powers that be. And to say that half-hearted, mealy-mouthed 'endorsement' was 'bowing down' is straight up hyperbole and you damned well know it.

Once Rupert Murdoch sicked his sheep dogs on the Republican rank and file herd and made them afraid to nominate the only candidate they had who could win, the 2012 election was a write-off. We tried to destroy the 'lesser evil' myth and we failed. We tried to destroy the myth that thirty million votes could possibly be 'thrown away' and we failed. The deadline came and we were only halfway to the tipping point. Get over it already! The best thing we could hope for at that point was that our man would take the opportunity to 'position himself well', and that's just what the man did. It's sad. But it's also true.

They've been playing their divide and conquer game for decades. It's just not realistic to expect that we can overcome it in six years. We need to give Rand some credit, and we need to give ourselves some credit. When you can't get the touchdown, you have to go for a first down.

So, Rand Paul is playing for the nomination. He's not running an educational campaign. The road to the White House leads through a major party convention. That's the conventional wisdom (excuse the unavoidable pun). Now, do we want the White House, or do we want to sit astride our beautiful big white horse and stand atop the moral high ground until that white horse starves to death under us?

Rand's job is to get to the goal of the GOP nomination. He's doing a fine job so far. His father was criticized for being so principled that he couldn't get anything done. Well, guess what? He was so principled that he didn't get anything done. It was all very admirable, but other than educated, what did it get us? It's sad. But it's true.

Now, if we love our liberty and we love what this nation once was, what we need to do is to move under the Republican Rank and File's radar and get Rand Paul into a position to win the general election just a few painfully short weeks after the GOP convention. This won't be easy. The divide and conquer tactics, and Dubya's infamous crimes, have turned the capital R into The Scarlet Letter. Worse, just as soon as we wear down the resistance of independent voters to Rand Paul, the powers that be will notice and the Mainstream Mafia will suddenly turn on the man and take every opportunity they can find to rip him. But we don't have a more likely path to peace and prosperity in our time than this! You don't know for sure if you trust Rand Paul? Fair enough. Do you trust Rubio more? Do you trust Hillary more? Who do you trust more? Will you at least entertain the possibility that Rand Paul is his father's son?

If the federal government is running your local fire department, and it isn't performing as it should, you have to convince thirty million voters that your local fire department is more important than abortion, gay marriage, and their own local fire departments combined. That is the face of This New Federal Tyranny. If states regulate things, and corporations want everything their own way, they have to buy off fifty state legislatures. If Washington runs everything, the corporations can go to Washington for One Stop Shopping. This is the face of This New Federal Fascism. We, the People are going to have to take a gamble because we have nothing left to lose. Nothing.

The people have spoken. They want the Lesser Evil. I'm not convinced Rand Paul is evil at all. Not even convinced. But let's suppose you are. Is or is not Rand Paul enough less evil than all those other evil bastards to make a real, appreciable, and vital difference in our lives?

Now, can we lay off the distractions and figure out how to deal with the challenge that will face us early in November of 2016 yet? Or will we continue to chase our tails and eat our own until this nation goes right down the crapper?

Not so much that I couldn't campaign for him if he had ever run for political office...but enough that the same people would not make up our core supporters if that were so.

The general election requires more than 'core supporters'. I don't care who you are. If We, the People are to throw off the chains of our conquerers, we are going to have to learn all over again how to stand united. And that means We, the Enlightened Libertarians are going to have to get brilliant enough to figure out how to look past the media's definition of who makes up the Core Supporters and learn how to create core supporters.

It's that or lose again. And while we're fiddling around with that, Rome is already burning...