Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Rand Paul Backs Away from His Full Endorsement of Mitt Romney

Here is a strange one.

Rand Paul has issued a statement in National Review where he writes his views on  the grounds for attacking Iran are different from those of Mitt Romney.

Here's where the strangeness begins. National Review is considered by many in the libertarian movement to be a publication launched by William F. Buckley with the aid of the CIA.

In 1997, The Rothbard-Rockwell Report informed:
The armchair warriors in the neoconservative camp and the inveterate interventionists at National Review can both trace their roots straight back to the propaganda efforts of the CIA... The official line holds that National Review was founded in an intellectual vacuum, and, for all intents and purposes, created conservatism in America. But events, as are most often the case, were not that simple. The idea for National Review originated with Willi Schlamm, a hard-line interventionist and feature editor with the Old Right Freeman. At odds with the isolationism of the right, Schlamm was well-known for his belligerence, having demanded that the United States go to war over Formosa.

One person in a position to know more details about the founding of NR was the late classicist and right-winger Revilo Oliver. Although late in life Oliver was associated most closely with extremist racialism, in the 50s, he was an influential member of the Buckley inner circle, a regular contributor to National Review and a member of Bill Buckley’s wedding party. Later, he went on to serve as a founding board member of the John Birch Society, until his break with the Society’s founder Robert Welch.

In his autobiography, Oliver explains that the National Review was conceived as a way to put the isolationist Freeman out of business...

Buckley, by 1955, had already been in deep cover for the CIA. While there is some confusion as to the actual duration of Buckley’s service as an agent, Judis notes that he served under E. Howard Hunt of Watergate fame in Mexico City in 1951. Buckley was directed to the CIA by Yale Professor Wilmoore Kendall, who passed Buckley along to James Burnham, then a consultant to the Office Of Policy Coordination, the CIA’s covert-action wing.

Buckley apparently had a knack for spying: before his stint with the Agency, he had served as an on-campus informant for the FBI, feeding God only knows what to Hoover’s political police. In any case, it is known that Buckley continued to participate at least indirectly in CIA covert activities through the 60s.

The founding circle of National Review was composed largely of former agents or men otherwise in the pay of the CIA, including Buckley, Kendall, and Burnham. Wall Street lawyer William Casey, rooted in OSS activities and later to be named director of the CIA, drew up the legal documents for the new magazine. (He also helped transfer Human Events from isolationist to interventionist hands.)

NR required nearly half a million to get off the ground; the only substantial contribution known was from Will Buckley, Senior: $100,000. It’s long been rumored that CIA black funds were used to start the magazine, but no hard evidence exists to establish it. It may also be relevant that the National Review was organized as a nonprofit venture, as covert funding was typically channeled through foundations.
Lew Rockwell has pointed out that
NR hates Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, Albert Jay Nock, H.L. Mencken, Garett Garrett, John T. Flynn
In other words, Rand's choice of venue for his statement is kind of like him speaking against antisemitism, while tooling around in a World War II German panzer.

Here's some of the war mongering stuff that goes on at NR:
A president need not wait until an attack is imminent before taking action. Iranian nuclear capabilities would cause a radical reversal of the balance of power, and that fact justifies action in itself...Our forces would have to destroy Iranian air-defense sites, but otherwise, thanks to precision-guided missiles and drones, they could concentrate on a few links in the Iranian nuclear chain: the centrifuge facilities where uranium is enriched, the assembly points for weapons, and perhaps missile and air-delivery systems...Nuclear-weapons infrastructure is a legitimate military target, even if some strikes may kill civilians.

But, let's move on to what Rand wrote.

In his NR statement Rand moves away from his position that Romney is solid on foreign policy, he writes:
I do not yet know if I will find a Romney presidency more acceptable on foreign policy. But I do know that I must oppose the most recent statements made by Mitt Romney in which he says he, as president, could take us to war unilaterally with Iran, without any approval from Congress. His exact words were:

I can assure you if I’m president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don’t believe at this stage, therefore, if I’m president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now.

This is a misreading of the role of the president and Congress in declaring war.
Note well: Rand here is not saying he is against attacking Iran, just that he wants congressional approval--so its not a great anti-war leap, more of a call for a stamp of approval war.

Rand also seems to be moving away from his claim that Romney is close to Ron Paul with regard to views on the Fed. It's now all about Obama being a bad guy. Rand now writes:
I endorsed Governor Romney for many reasons, not the least of which is that we simply cannot afford four more years of President Obama. Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, an out-of-control EPA and NLRB, and trillion-dollar deficits are combining to strangle our economy. I am afraid if that chokehold is not released quickly, our country may quickly follow Europe into destruction. Anyone who doesn’t believe there is a difference between the two candidates on economic issues is simply not looking or not being honest with their assessments. 
Bottom line: Rand appears to have been re-working his politician math and realizes that the numbers don't work when you blow up your base. This one column is unlikely to be enough to bring the Ron Paulites back into the Rand Paul camp. But now I look forward to Rand explaining why he chose to reposition himself through of all vehicles, NR. Which is not only bad on foreign policy, but from where a senior editor of NR launched a crazed attack on Ron Paul's End the Fed views.

(ht Murray Sabrin)

45 comments:

  1. Oh I see.. Rand is a CIA plant! Yea, that must be it.

    Really, I think you're stretching a little here, no?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rand is not, but his organization has been infiltrated.

      Delete
    2. I didn't get that at all, where did he insinuate that Rand was a CIA plant? Rand isn't a Ron Paul by any stretch of the imagination but obviously far better than most. What worries me now, will Rand settle into being a typical politician? I think it's possible that Gary Johnson is more Libertarian than Rand Paul.

      Delete
    3. Gary Johnson is a lot more Libertarian than Rand, and becoming moreso each day as he reads Hazlitt and Rothbard.

      Delete
    4. It's been obvious for some time Rand isn't sound on foreign policy -- recall the vote on iran sanctions. I think he sold out when he got to dc, maybe promised that he'll be the nominee after Romney, either in 2016 or 2020. I imagine the idea is people will buy into him being "not too bad" rather than "lesser of two evils," and he'll snag the RP folks & liberty movement, much like the gop disemboweled the tea partiers with "cut spending" etc talk in 2010. No change for us if his boss is the same as the old boss's boss. Actually it's simpler than that: as long as wars continue, liberty dies, and Rand supports wars.

      Delete
  2. "In other words, Rand's choice of venue for his statement is kind of like him speaking against antisemitism, while tooling around in World War II German panzer." I wished I'd said that. Masterful!

    ReplyDelete
  3. RW has certainly made up his mind about Rand! He may be right but lets see the claims made above First the title- Rand backs from full endorsement - not sure what that means, some never thought Rand endorsed Romney's foreign policy. Did he skirt the issue and gave his endorsement in a diplomatic way - yes. SO RW first condemns Rand for supporting Romney's foreign policy a few weeks back (when Rand did not) and then says that what I(RW) attributed to Rand, Rand has backed away from that. Second, while there may be something to the choice of Rand's outlet it is quite a stretch to condemn him definitely that there is some meaning to this.The fact that Rothbard was hated by NR doesnt mean that people should not publish in it. Would you not publish an article in something funded by Rockefeller or Soros or even CIA if you could reach people? That is part of what we are trying to do you know - influence the other side with our ideas. We are supposed to condemn Rand because he has spoken to the audience which is probably diametrically opposite to what we believe in? I say good for Rand for getting an article out there! Third, while RW may do as he wishes for EPJ the coverage of Rand here is decidedly partial, one that insists on providing evidence that is pro RW's initial hypothesis -Rand is a snake. Nothing wrong with partial coverage though after all the blog is about RW's opinion but it is a fact that needs to be mentioned. Finally, should we watch out for Rand, yes of course. Is it too early to pass a judgement - most definitely. Do yourself a favor and read the article before going through RW's analysis of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rand absolutely did issue a supporting statement about Romney's foreign policy in his endorsement. That's an inarguable fact that can not be denied by even the most brazen Rand apologist.

      Delete
  4. But Rand Paul isn't saying anything that Ron Paul hasn't said. Ron Paul favors non-intervention, but the decision to intiate war is not the President's constitutional duty. It belongs to Congress.

    And, of course, when you make a general statement in a press release, you are certained to be called upon to become more specific. Again, we have routine politics going on here.

    Why National Review? Because Murray Rothbard was once an economic adviser to William Buckley and a contributor to National Review. The "Old Right" and the "New Right" were not originally so clearly defined. Buckley read the Old Right out of the movement with his attacks on Rothbard, Ayn Rand, and others. This is conquered territory. It is the citadel of the New Right. It is the territory that needs to be liberated.

    Let us remember that libertarians were once united with paleo-conservatives, "isolationists," true liberals and a host of former Democrats, and they very nearly won it all in 1952. That is the coalition that we need to resurrect. Libertarians aren't going to prevail entirely on their own.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I skim the comments, these are the most insightful remarks I've seen so far. Only a coalition can move the center politically on these issues. Thanks, robb!

      Delete
  5. While it may be true that Paulians are less likely to vote, Rand does need them for their political activism. They are winning delegage posts and local offices all over the country. They are growing and becoming educated by people like Robert Wenzel and the folks at Mises. While we go through a massive default, students of Austrian economics will have much of the answers Washington will never have. We need greater freedom for all of us, including those who have capital and technical expertise to rebuild this country the way any business owner can freely put forth his vision of serving customers. If the state is forced to shrink, voluntary actions, including private philanthropy, will become far more humane, logical and effective. I doubt that Rand will be able to broker the deals needed to roll back the corporate-state. Any positive advances he makes will be nullified by scratching the other guy's back. His father is well known to turn away all lobbyists. How many lobbyists does Rand turn away? I don't know. But I imagine he is nothing like Ron, in this respect as well.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Either the President takes us to war unilaterally, or, after enough people start demanding that we go to war only after congressional approval, they manufacture a false flag event or provoke an actual attack (Pearl Harbor-style) to generate public approval sufficient to get congressional approval for war. It seems the common people can't win.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I endorsed Governor Romney for many reasons, not the least of which is that we simply cannot afford four more years of President Obama. Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, an out-of-control EPA and NLRB, and trillion-dollar deficits are combining to strangle our economy."

    yeah thats true, but we also can't afford four years of president Willard, romneycare part deux, the all new Bachus-Camp regulations, an out of control pentagon/zionist/military-industrial-espionage/homeland security-complex and the same trillion dollar deficits. Why did you sell out, Rand?

    ReplyDelete
  8. When Ron Paul was briefly first in the Iowa polls, Rich Lowry the neo-con boy wonder from National Review also launched a tirade about Ron Paul on foxnews. He said that Paul was a racist, had a racist newsletter, and that it had discredited etc -- which was extremely ironic given the far more racist past of his hero WFB and the NR magazine itself that people like Dilorenzo documented on lewrockwell.com.

    This magazine, just like the trotskyite William F Buckley in the first place, views anti-war libertarians like Ron Paul as their true enemy. Rand's advisors gave him some absolutely horrible advice, and it is a clear sign that they have noticed the blowback for Rand to be issuing a statement like this. Rand may not even win re-election in Kentucky, let alone have a prayer running for President, without the Ron Paul base which he has mostly destroyed in the last two weeks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or... it has nothing to do with whatever whining has occurred at the fringes of the Ron Paul campaign, and Rand is continuing to think, talk, and act just as Rand always has, and is calling out the man who (barring a miracle) will be the GOP presidential nominee the same way he has called out the current Demoncrap president, by reiterating his constant, unchanging position on the warmaking power. Gee, Rand is the same as he ever was, regardless of having endorsed the guy from his Party who will end up being the nominee from his Party.

      Delete
    2. anonymous @ 6:05pm -- Yeah, right. Rand just happened to backtrack over statements made a few days before? Wrong. The blowback has completely shocked Rand and his advisors, and it is why Jack Hunter (more than likely the ghost writer for rand's editorials) has been typing up a storm over on the ronpaul2012 site and trying to justify Rand's behavior. I actually don't have a huge problem with a rand endorsement, but the way he did it, and his claims that romney is a "grown up" on foreign policy and that he favors auditing the Fed are completely incorrect.

      And if Rand has an unchanging view on war, why is he endorsing someone who has openly stated they will go to war on their own as President against Iran? Why did Rand support sanctions against Iran for that matter, since that in and of itself is an act of war?

      Delete
  9. Thanks, Bob! :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Or it would be like speaking as a supposedly freedom loving member of the great Paul family while endorcing Mitt Romney on the Sean Hannity show....oh wait, that's exactly what he did. Frankly I think the Panzer tank thing would have pissed off far fewer people.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I assure you, we rank-in-file Ron Paul supporters and true 'Libertarians' view Rand as a quisling. It was bad enough he endorsed Mitt Romney - as much a Monster as Dick Cheney or Obama - and a man completely antithetical to our Founders' vision of Constitutionality, Civil Liberties, and Freedom. But, to announce this on the 'Sean Hannity Show' was literally spitting in the eyes of both his father (Ron Paul) and his support. Sean Hannity is one of the most toxic Neocon pundits around whose smarmy hatred of Ron Paul is no secret. His hissing denunciations and outright irreverence of both Ron and his movement not only was the epitomy of insult, but highlighted just how dark and repugnant the Neoconned GOP and its base support are. For Rand to announce his support for a man like Romney - to the smirking, goading delight of Scumbag Sean - was a double-barreled outrage to decency itself. Rand will have to do a LOT of apologizing and explaining to ever get my support back, and I'll bet I speak for the majority of people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry for the rant, but these Rand haters infuriate me.

      The problem with Americans (and humanity in general) is that we place emotion above intelligence. I would like to consider myself a true libertarian, as I agree 100% along our party lines. I also would be one of the many individuals who has not lost an ounce of respect for Rand, but supported him on his endorsement. There has to be a time when we Ron Paul supporters admit that we will not win. Ron Paul does not have the delegates to win. I say this as a full supporter of Ron Paul. I voted for him (in both primaries), campaigned for him, and donated to his cause. I have voted libertarian my entire life. Mitt will be the nominee. Am I happy about this? No. Will I vote for him? No. I will vote for Gary Johnson. Would I tell someone wont vote for Gary to vote for Mitt? Yes. I know they are very similar, but Mitt is a Republican, and though libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, as many have said before "Its the economy, stupid". It has to come down to this: Do you want to have more socialistic economics (entitlements, Gov spending, increase in Gov controlled jobs vs the private sector) or do you want more union power, regulations, decrease of free market competition, and more infringements on the constitution?

      There are four very important things to remember here, and lets start with Rand. Remember that Rand promised when he was campaigning to support the Republican nominee. Ron Paul has such a huge support for his cause, mainly because he is a man of his words, and have voted along every promise he made. What would Rand be if he broke a promise he made in his first campaign into office? If Rand broke a promise like that right off the bat how could we ever trust him?
      Second, let us look at how well Ron did running as an outsider of not only the Democrats, but his own Republican party. How many times before Rand did you hear about a bill to Audit the FED being considered by congress? How many times did you hear about a Senator (or congressman) fighting for an uphold of the Constitution, as you hear from Rand regarding US Drones conducting unlawful searches? Rand plays nice with the neocons and the rest of the GOP but he always votes along his beliefs. Here is a great sight I use when evaluating every candidates: http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htm. Look at how Rand votes. Though there are some thinks pure libertarians who would disagree with him (Rand is more of a libertarian-conservative mix anyways)he has always voted for what he said he would, and votes more libertarian than at least 80% of the rest of government.
      Third, who honestly, who do you expect would replace Rand if we just voted him out? How many libertarians are there in Gov? Not much. Rand may not be perfect, but we are better with him then with a Democrat or Neocon.
      And Finally, lets focus on the benefit of Mitt over Obama. It would appear that many people forget their high school Government classes, but the US President does not have absolute power. Congress makes the laws, the President only has the ability to veto. Sure he can say anything he wants, but in the end it comes down to our elected Congress to pass the laws. Mitt will only be there as a GOP place holder, voting along party lines. Sure, a GOP run Government is far from perfect, but would you rather increased Free Market Capitalism, or an increase in safety nets, leading to more Government power.

      Remember my fellow libertarians, intelligence > emotions. Vote with your mind and not with your heart. And hey, what if the rumors are true and Rand gets the nomination in 2016? A libertarian President? What a win that would be.

      Delete
    2. Surely the point is not so much that he has endorsed Romney, but the timing and the manner of his doing so, as is pointed out above, on a show which has done nothing but pour scorn on his father and his father's supporters.

      Ron Paul fired up people's enthusiasm, and made them willing to put in a lot of time, effort and money. That's not just about intelligence, it needs emotion too. Libertarians may well be able to rationalise support for Rand on the basis that he's the best of a bad bunch, but that's not the same as with Ron, who was positively good.

      Delete
  12. I am very curious too about the choice of NR for publication. How many fans does Rand have at a publication like NR? Moreover, they were nasty to his father and they are well know as a fountainhead of neonconservatism. Why not say Reason, or a newspaper like the LA Times?

    In any case, he does seem to be listening to his base which is a positive. I would also say it is becoming increasing clear that you can't hold onto the passionate element of the Ron Paul base while downplaying foreign policy and civil liberties. Both of these are core issues that I don't see can be finessed or downplayed. They are the glue that hold many together in the movement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe Rand chose National Review to make a statement to the enemy, by riding into the heart of their camp and making it plain that he has not changed his thoughts, words, or deeds about anything merely because of voicing an endorsement of the inevitable (barring some miracle) presidential candidate from his political party.

      Delete
    2. LOL.Rand's problem right now is not conversions of neocons, but trying to hold his base together that he threw under the bus last week

      Delete
    3. Yeah, "merely" endorsing Romney which is the same as endorsing Obama, Bush, or any other statist big government warmonger. If he was a politician in 1933 Germany would he endorse Hitler so he could "change the Nazi Party from the inside"? Yes I know that is an extreme example but the Us government is NO DIFFERENT. Like Lew Rockwell said, it's like trying to change the mafia. That is NOT going to happen.

      A person can be too "pragmatic" for his own good.

      Delete
  13. The most curious aspect of this is the venue (National Review) and the message (the President’s powers are limited).

    That it is in National Review suggests that Rand is at least somewhat acceptable (and important) to what has for decades been the gatekeeper, neo-con, rag. More important: Rand’s message was found worthy to print in the gatekeeper rag suggests that there is something about this message that is acceptable, even perhaps desired.

    I am only somewhat knowledgeable about NR and it overall editorial policies over the decades, however these two factors strike me as curious, if not important. Why would NR publish commentary that suggests the President’s powers are limited? At that, the Republican President (if he wins the election)?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "In other words, Rand's choice of venue for his statement is kind of like him speaking against antisemitism, while tooling around in a World War II German panzer."

    Perhaps a more charitable interpretation would be that he's speaking against antisemitism **to a bunch of WW2 Germans**. What audience needs to be persuaded against Presidential war powers more than NR's readers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I said above, Rand has enough trouble right now holding his base together to be spending time, LOL, attempting to convert hardcore neocons.

      Delete
  15. Ugh, I'm a huge Paul fan, but this conspiracy theory crap is stupid. Stop making us look so pathetic and weird. The sheer amount of infighting is why the establishment exists -- not some kind of conspiracy. Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, but don't know what you are talking about. Do a little research on the CFR, Royal Institute of International Relations, and who started them. The fact is there is a conspiracy, there is a plan for a New World Order, and it's right out there in the open if you just look. Read 'Tragedy and Hope' by Carroll Quigley, 'None Dare Call it Conspiracy' by Gary Allen. 'The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America' by Charlotte Isyerbyt, 'Behind the Green Mask' by Rosa Koire to get a good base of understanding the New World Order.

      Delete
    2. Yeah I get damned tired of the conspiracy theory crap myself. Lew's awesome but his site went way downhill sometime in 2008-2009 when he started posting all this conspiracy stuff.

      Delete
    3. Calling it a 'conspiracy' when there is a lot of reasonable suspicion to be had against the diabolical NR is fatuous. Calling it infighting assumes Rand is libertarian.

      Delete
    4. Watch Buckley's reaction from the 88 race when Paul appeared on his show to the idea that the CIA be disbanded. WFB the Trotskyite went back to that issue over and over again -- he was willing to accept other radical aspects of Paul's for the sake of argument, but the CIA was not one of them.

      And then there is the issue of funding. Where exactly did the money come from to fund NR all of those years? And when an anti-war figure emerged from the magazine, like Joseph Sobran coming out against Iraq War I, he was fired for that specific reason. When Buchanan came out against the war as well, he was immediately attacked and labeled anti-semetic by the same magazine that had long published racial screeds by WFB and other writers in support of Apartheid, trashing MLK, and not allowing blacks in the South to vote.

      Why do you think that is?

      Delete
  16. This was on Rand Paul's own web site a couple of days ago. I read it there and posted the link at my forum. I'm still a huge fan of Ron Paul, but I'm on the fence about Rand. Not sure what to think of the guy just yet.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rand will have a hard time getting re-elected after his endorsement of Romney. I'm not sure he can back-pedal fast enough or far enough.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rand blew it, he's a statist through and through. Rand knows no Austrian Economics and he has no future other than a typical partisan Republican one. Ron Paul stood out so different than his own party for his dedication to a realistic approach with an Austrian theoretical base. Ron respected Lysander Spooner and Bastiat, and was close friends to Rothbard, some of the most radical men that ever lived. The callouses on Rand's knees for having been gobbling on the balls of the establishment GOP, are ever too noticeable for anyone other than a GOP lover to like him. His image is tarnished and he is just another oxymoronic Reagan. End of story.....Stop Voting! Get a private sector job, join anti-state groups, study Austrian Economics and fight the state until you die.....That's the new approach of the Libertarian. Working through the system has been the same story time and time again. They are all just too statist, and once one gets involved in the system, they will never turn back....ever.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Two things:

    "The "left" versus "right" split is fraudulent and used to control the debate and condition citizens to think along certain lines. Left-wing magazines like the "The Nation" and "The New Republic" and right-wing magazines like "The National Review were "artificially set up." The former were financed by Whitney money while the latter by Buckley. Both are "The Order."
    -- Antony Sutton (1925-2002) former Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute – Stanford University

    Mike Adams, has already proposed the idea, that Rand could be serving as a 'double agent.' In similar fashion, to Bonhoeffer, only hope he does meet the same fate as Bonhoeffer. A very risky, but bold strategy. He has the capacity, and resources to pull off such feat. Time will only tell here.

    To those here, who can't handle the word 'conspiracy,' time to grow a pair, and put off your childish ways. Conspiracy does exist. Read a little history, if you dare. I suggest, you check into L. Fletcher Prouty (USAF). He will inform you of a 'high cabal,' (aka The Gentry) that has existed for centuries, if not multiple millenia. If one believes the words of the Holy Bible, then a reading of Job, will give ones clues, just how far it goes back. When an entity claims the power to "bind ... Pleiades," or "loose ... Orion," then that entity either speaks with and has authority to do so, or it is simply mad. It certainly is not just mistaken...

    ReplyDelete
  20. This whole Rand debacle brings the phrase, "pride comes before a fall" to mind. (Proverbs 16:18).

    Prideful little Rand thought everyone loved him so much that he could even betray his own father on national tv and everyone would still fawn over him and tell him how awesome he is. He is hopefully now learning that, in fact, his father and his father's supporters got him to where he is today and he can't spit on them and hope to still move on to "bigger and better things." In politics, the general rule seems to be that you use people to get what you want, and then you discard them when you're done. That appears to be what Rand has done to his father and his father's supporters.

    Rand, repent and apologize to your father and your father's supporters before it's too late. Your own soul and loyalty to your family is much more important than any worldly political gain.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rand thinks Ron is not being honest with himself, or simply not looking. Ron has stated many times there is essentially no difference between 'the other candidates' and the President, including on the economy where both parties amass incredulous deficits.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Rand Paul might be a true objectivist (he is named after Ayn Rand after all) and truly believe in the morality of selfishness, so he is looking after moi.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Who is ghost writing all of these op eds for Rand? Is it Jack Hunter? I don't think Rand actually writes them because he does not have the intellect his father does. Ron can rattle off things in a live convo off the top of his head that have to do with relatively obscure philosophy, econ theory, US history, etc so I have zero problem believing Ron writes his material. When Rand is interviewed, however, he does not have a fraction of that ability.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Wait, what happened to the "happy" endorsement of a known warmonger and statist? Willard's views on foreign policy have been very clear to anyone who cared to pay attention, so what's with Rand's backing up? Did he realize that he might have made a deal with the devil? Nah, politicians don't care about that.

    I think he's realized just how many supporters he alienated with that little stunt...

    Still, you've got to give credit where credit is due, and he IS standing up to yet another potential four year dictator crowing about how "he" will take war to the Persians/Iraqis/Afghans/insert other target population. Good on you, Rand, for that. I still won't be sending you any money next election cycle.

    ReplyDelete