Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Ralph Nader on Ron and Rand Paul

Sometimes, it's good to get a non-libertarians outsider's perspective. Here's Nader (Nader comments in bold):

The wars — that’s the big thing. This is why Ron Paul did not speak at the Republican Convention. His son did — who’s very craven by the way — but Ron Paul refused because they would only allow him to speak on the condition that they be able to vet his remarks.
And, total endorsement of Romney. He’s the only principled person — he said no. Unlike his son.
I attended his counter-convention there in Tampa, and I don’t know if you saw any of his speech — but I’ve seen a lot Ron Paul speeches, and this was remarkable. It was the most subversive speech of his I’ve ever heard. You should take the time, if you have an hour or so, to watch it. Because what stood out mostly to me — well, a lot stood out — but what really jarred me was when he defended by name, in the most strident possible terms, both Bradley Manning and Julian Assange.
Yeah, well he’s on the record as saying there should be more WikiLeaks.
He served in Air Force himself, and for him to defend the Army Private who is currently being tried by the U.S. Military with “aiding and abetting Al Qaeda” …?
No, he’s very good. He’s one of a kind. His son is not his father’s son, that’s for sure.
Actually, his son lied to my face, if you can believe it.
Yeah. I can.
I encountered him on the floor of the Tampa Convention. By the way, side-note: it was much easier for journalists to get on the floor of the Tampa Convention than the Charlotte Convention. I was not able to get on the floor at all in Charlotte....
There’s long been a theory circulating at the grassroots that I’ve found credible, which is that people within Ron Paul’s apparatus — maybe sabotage is a strong word — but they were not doing all they could to actually help him win.
Rand Paul restrained him. I don’t know how much was voluntary by Ron Paul. But he didn’t make a big fuss at the Convention because of Rand Paul. Rand Paul has ambition, you see? Ron Paul had no ambition. He had a message; he had a mission. Rand Paul has ambition. He is extremely arrogant. He will not return calls, for example. He will not answer letters.
I couldn’t believe how brazen a lie he uttered to me. I asked him, what did he make of the plight of the Ron Paul delegates at the Republican Convention, who were just arbitrarily not seated — for absolutely no good reason. He said he hadn’t heard anything about it.

Well, he’s a liar. You ought to make that point.


28 comments:

  1. Where is this interview? I want to read the whole thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just click on the blue "Nader" link.

      Delete
  2. I think Nader's take on Rand is spot-on. The problem isn't so much Rand's politicking per se, rather it is the ambition that underlies much of what he is doing. Rand is trying too hard to get along and to get ahead in the GOP. His father didn't look at things that way and he was effective and respected because of it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney baldwin ventura sheehan perot carterSeptember 18, 2012 at 9:05 AM

    Jesse Ventura and Ralph Nader are standing tall.

    ReplyDelete
  4. These "unreasonable" men deserve respect for telling the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes! John Adams was considered "unreasonable" as well.

      Delete
  5. Just wait for the Rand Paul fan boys like Robb to say that this was really a good thing bc all politicians (except Ron, for some reason) have to lie, so Rand is just practicing on lying to civil libertarians like Nader in order to pull one over on the GOP once he becomes President in order to give us all a libertarian victory!

    I love that Nader confirmed what we all know about those idiots Tate and benton, too. He also implicates Rand...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Once again, Ron was promised all of the power and prestige and glory of going along with one simple request that 99.9% of other politicians would do - endorse Romney to get personal glory and on national tv in exchange for compromising. Ron certainly lived up to being the standard bearer of Mises and Rothbard by telling Romney to go to hell at great personal cost and not caving.

    Ron Paul is simply amazing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you. Ron Paul is one of bravest men I've ever witnessed.

      The number of times he's stood tall in front of booing audiences while delivering a message of truth is amazing.

      I found myself cringing during some of the debates in the 08' and last cycle after his comments...knowing they were true but waiting for the hisses...

      Ron Paul is truly amazing.

      Delete
  7. I have a lot of respect for Nader, even though I disagree with him economically, because he is a man of principle. The same goes for Dennis Kucinich (though he did endorse Obama in 08). Other principled lefties include Glenn Greenwald, Alex Cockburn (RIP), Mike Gravel. I can't think of any others, and that's sad. What's also sad is that I respect Nader more than Rand Paul. I wondered to myself why that is, since Rand is obviously much closer philosophically (or is he?). I think it's because you can trust a man of principle and can't trust an opportunist.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Here are some other good quotes from the interview:

    Well, I think the Republicans were making overtures to him publicly, but working against him behind the scenes.

    They might’ve said, “If you make too many waves with the Federal Reserve and start subpoenaing people, we’ll take it away from you.”

    Did you hear that his campaign manager for the 2012 primaries (Jesse Benton), whom all the Ron Paul grassroots people always suspected was a traitor — actually his son-in-law — just signed on to manage the reelection campaign of none other than Mitch McConnell?

    Oh my Lord.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. grandson in law, not son in law.

      Delete
    2. Tell that to the website since that is what I copied and pasted. I think they just misspoke or they didn't realize the correct relation.

      Delete
  9. Rand is only here because of his father.

    Wait until Bland Paul sees what the Ron Paul Tea Party does to him next election cycle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's right. Rand Paul is a traitor.

      Delete
    2. It's ridiculous for Mitch McConnell and Jesse Benton, Rand too for that matter, to think that we are all just going to let what happened to us this election year just slide into yesterdays news. No, the betrayal was epic. We won't forget! And, we will run campaigns against theirs with real liberty and constitution loving candidates from grass roots, I think, anyways.

      Delete
    3. And you will be cutting your nose off to spite your face.
      Are you high? Have you seen his voting record?
      Look how he voted on the NDA. He is a steady voice for liberty.
      How about you spend your efforts unseating one of the many communists in office.

      Delete
  10. I have heard Nader speak twice to a small group of maybe 25 people. Each time was riveting.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yeah, my partner and I never fully trusted Rand. There's just something different about him and his father that's hard to put your finger on. Ron, on the other hand, is golden. US elections just won't be the same without him telling it like it is. Stupid Americans!! At this point in the game the country deserves everything it has coming. Unfortunately the smart ones who know and care about their country are going to be swept along like all the MSM fed morons into the economic abyss that awaits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some of us have taken extreme precautions. You're not afraid to die for your country, are you?

      Delete
  12. As if Ron Paul doesn't surreptitiously agree with his son. Research the internet: Ron Paul is a Mason. His gold standard is the bankster standard historically. No plan to bring the banksters to justice. No plan to put Americans to work by cancelling NAFTA. No plan for a people's National Bank. Just a belief in the corporate manipulated Free Market. This guy is an obvious shill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Ron Paul is a Mason."

      And being a Mason is inherently bad, why? Even IF that were true it just sounds like you're using a bunch of 'trigger' words to try & get attention for your feigned butthurt. It also sounds like you're smearing Paul for no good reason and with no real evidence to back up what you say. Way to go.

      ontheissues.org states that Paul is on the record as being AGAINST NAFTA. Get your facts straight, ie, 'research the internet' you derp.

      Delete
  13. Anon at 9:56 - do you perhaps subscribe to the beliefs of Lyndon LaRouche? (lol)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mr. Wenzel --

    You're mistaken. Michael Tracy's comments are emboldened; Ralph Nader's are not. (The link to the original piece shows that.) Please clarify that so that other websites are not misinforming people with headlines like, "Rand Paul lied to Ralph Nader."

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sorry, but somehow there seems to be a discrepancy between the fact that the site encouraged Rand Paul to take a look for good financial information and advise for future debates or public discussions on the one hand, yet on the other hand Rand is attacked various times on this very same site. Question: Would one be inclined to visit a site of economic data advise, when the same site attacks you without even hearing your side of the story or schedule a radio interview.

    Murray Rothbard - not an elected polician - endorsed Bush 1 vs Clinton, but Rand Paul is a traitor to the liberty movement because he endorsed Romney (stating still that his dad was, is and will remain his first choice)? Rand's endorsement does NOT mean his agrees or supports all that Romney is saying (or thinking) (and we are not even exactly sure what Romney's own personal opinion re. afghanistan is, as in the first GOP debate he also called for a return from Afghanistan and there are different opinions among his foreign policy advisers, which was probably the reason why he refrained from addressing Afghanistan with his RNC speech.
    During his Peter Schiff interview Rnd Paul mde clear that his endorsement has NOT a call to Ron Paul supporters to also vote for Romney. In KY Romney will beat Obama in any case. I cannot help thinking Rand is probably silently rooting for Gary Johnson (he - like his dad - would be a liar if he endorsed any candidate that is not pro-life.

    Rand just differ in tactics from his dad: his end ideal and vision is that same as his dad: this is clear to every sophisticated and sincere observer. It is also now clear to me why Rand voted from the Iran sanctions. He is probably against the sanctions himself but could see the overwhelming majority of the senators are going to vote for it, and as he wants to avoid physical war with Iran (just like his dad) he calculated that instead of simply voting against it, e.g. 99 vs 1, he rather decided to fight successfully for an amendment in the sanction bill, that reads that this does exclude military war. It actually means that military force should be put off the table.

    Can one get more anti-war by stating publicly: "I do think it unacceptable not to hate war"?

    http://www.christianpost.com/news/rand-paul-talks-faith-war-abortion-at-values-voter-summit-81655/#3myBey1JccTxrHuF.99

    Has Ralph Nader ever had a real conversation with Rand Paul to really judge him, his tactics and motives? Just asking.

    ReplyDelete
  16. One wonders whether Michael Tracy, Ralph Nader and various libertarians have read and took note of this statement by Rand about opposing unconstitutional wars? (after he endorsed Romney BTW):

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303298/opposing-unconstitutional-wars-sen-rand-paul#

    and would be curious to hear or read Nader's reaction to it...
    Rand RNC speech was of course heavily scripted (and he could not even name his father by name, but cleverly implied him he combatted a major underlying reason for war, as well as taking away of ciil liberties e.g. irrational fear with the "liberty-security" reference to George Washington, just like his dad.

    For one, I could also understand why Rand refers to himself as a constitutional conservative, and not a libertarian when he said himself in the South the word libertarian generally has a negative connotation and perception, e.g. they associate it with a synonym for liberal or libertine attitude and with abortion, pro-prostitution, pro-drug using etc., which would make any libertarian unelectable in social-conservative KY (the least libertarian state in the whole USA).

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ron Paul sold out when he allowed his watered down video to be shown at the GOP convention. Ron Paul is a traitor. I stand with Rand, a real man of principle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. What do you mean he "allowed" the video to be shown? Are you 12 years old or something? You do realized the video was made by Romney people and he didn't have a choice, right?

      You do know Ron Paul wasn't even in the room out of protest, right?

      Delete