Thursday, November 7, 2013

Has the Libertarian Movement Lost Rand Paul?

For some of us, Rand Paul has never been a principled libertarian. We consider him an opportunist working under the cover of some libertarian positions. But things are changing fast, and more forgiving libertarians are going to have to take a second look.

Rand's meeting with Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes is deeply disturbing. Note well the report from Politico on the meeting. It's not as if Rand showed up at News Corp and was put in a conference room and Murdoch and Ailes passed by to say, "Hi."

Politico reports that Murdoch and Ailes both met with Rand separately. You do not get to spend time with Murdoch unless it is serious. Murdoch and Ailes are vetting him as a potential FOX sponsored presidential candidate and that means Rand will have to play by Murdoch rules, not the other way around.

Watch this closely, the closer Rand gets to Murdoch and Ailes, the more all libertarians, who haven't dismissed Rand yet, are going to have to do some deep soul searching.

28 comments:

  1. Perhaps we'll soon see Rand on O'Reilly making fun of Ron Paul and Ka knee zian economics.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A17lR53YeSg

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nothing to worry about.
    Rand RepubliCAN is probably just getting ideas on how to best "reform" the FCC.

    ReplyDelete
  3. How he get's the office is one thing, how he'll rule is another.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rand is at least more realistic than his father and the author of this post. He understands the obvious, which is that America is no longer a libertarian nation. If you want to be President some day you have to deal with that fact. The way things are going in this prison nation I would be willing to settle for someone who repeals Obamacare, puts a leash on the NSA, respects my right to keep and bear arms and doesn't start World War III to save Israel.

    If you're expecting more than that from Rand Paul (or any other politician) then you are clearly expecting too much. We don't live in Rothbardia and we never have. You can't expect any politician to roll back 100 years of 'Progressive' assault on liberty. The modern welfare/warfare state is all the American people know and you will scare the hell out of them if you set them free. Only a tiny percentage of Americans want to live as sovereign and independent citizens and you can't build a national political career on a foundation of some marginal group of libertarian purists. Sorry, but as they say these days, it is what it is.

    P.S. Besides, the fix is already in. Krispy Kreme Christie has been chosen as the Republican presidential nominee (sacrificial lamb?) in 2016 by the party elite. The rank and file of the Republican party have nothing to do with choosing their presidential candidates. They just rubber stamp the choice made for them by the oligarchs. Come 2017 we will get 8 more years of President Billary Clinton. Won't that be fun!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not so sure about Christie being on track for the republican ticket. I think they are still auditioning for that job.

      Delete
    2. Heh, look at how much you have to compromise. It will only get worse to the point where you won't even get thrown a bone. Why do people still think politics will solve anything? It WON'T.

      Delete
    3. America was never a libertarian nation.

      [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

      Delete
    4. Jerry, regulate, in those times meant to open the door to commerce. Not to block it.

      Delete
    5. I'd rather be RIGHT than President!

      Delete
    6. Now that's a good comment!

      Delete
    7. And most ameicans were against the constitution, so your point is mute.

      Delete
    8. @ Anonymous November 7, 2013 at 11:35 AM

      That is exactly why it is utterly pointless voting for Rand. At most he would set the clock back to about 2008. Some freedom fighter.
      Yeah, he is more "realistic" than his father. As if that is a laudable quality for a politician.

      I even hesitate to think Rand would do any of the things you mention, except perhaps leave the 2nd amendment alone.

      Delete
    9. @ Jerry Wolfgang

      "America was never a libertarian nation."

      You're right, for once. It was meant to be a mercantilist state serving moneyed and landed interests from the start.

      Delete
  5. Anon @ 11:35 AM
    "and doesn't start World War III to save Israel"

    Rupert wouldn't go near anyone who doesn't think the world revolves around Jerusalem.
    Your comprising, lesser of 2 evils dream has blown up already.


    ReplyDelete
  6. I've come to learn that compromise is a big part of politics. I think Rand would be an improvement over Obama. I would always make the disclaimer though that he is not my ideal. My ideal would be no federal government.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sadly there will be some libertarians who will still defend him even if he continues to get closer to Murdoch and Ailes

    ReplyDelete
  8. Unnecessary violence in the name of the state will never be a reason to search MY soul.
    Time will tell if Rand can claim the same.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Reading Wenzel, you would think Rand is the president. You say he is fraud million times already so why don't you just move on? He's one of 100 senator, why don't you talk about rest ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody proclaims Chuck Schumer or Harry Reid to be bastions of liberty.

      Similarly, I don't think it's necessary to write why rape is bad.

      Delete
    2. Because we don't need to tell you the rest are a bunch of big government assholes who can't be trusted. You already know this.
      But obviously you still have a soft spot for Rand. We can tell by the fact that you don't like it when Rand's moves are highlighted. Which is why the articles about Rand need to continue.

      Delete
  10. A person who endorsed neocon Jenifer Rubin has no credibility and will not be taken seriously when he criticize a senator who stood up for 13 hours defending liberty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rand did not standup for liberty. He stood up for Rand.

      Delete
    2. @ Anonymous
      Was this the same guy who insisted the government shutdown needed to end immediately because the thought of being without a big government bureaucracy for a little while was scary to him?
      Yeah, sure he stood for "liberty". Whenever it is safe and he knows it doesn't actually lead to anything substantial.

      Delete
  11. I am in the camp that believes he is withholding his heavy libertarian stances to appeal to a much broader electorate. I think he actually wants to be president. I will choose to speak against the political process but as long as the state is still standing it does not hurt to try to elect those who are most sympathetic towards our cause. He is a Paul after all. Plus, doesn't Alex Jones constantly suggest Murdoch is an honest conservative (Am I using Alex Jones as a reputable source?).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His father didn't withhold his libertarian stances, why should his son? If Rand really supported liberty he would fire on all cylinders but he isn't. Rand wanting to play on both sides of the fence isn't cutting it and hurts the liberty movement in the long run. Adam Kokesh was right about Rand and so is Wenzel.

      As far as honest conservative goes, is that on par with a free market liberal? Since neither of those creatures exist.

      Delete
    2. "He is a Paul after all."

      Meaningless phrase. Was Charles Manson's dad a serial killer?

      "Plus, doesn't Alex Jones constantly suggest Murdoch is an honest conservative."

      Why is being an honest conservative any different than being an honest commie (like Bill DeBlasio)?
      First of all, Murdoch is a NEO-con, and even if he was a simple conservative, so what? As a libertarian, i have no reason to sympathize with conservatives any more or less than liberals. They both love the state and running other people's lives.

      Delete