Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Rand Paul Tries to Bailout Sinking Ship Romney- Ryan

USA Today reports:
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan arrived in Ohio this week to news of dropping poll numbers and a widening gap in the Buckeye state between the Republican nominee and President Obama. Luckily, they brought back up. 
Sen. Rand Paul,R-Ky., joined the pair on the road Tuesday, and while he had planned to campaign for Romney, his appearance on the trail couldn't have come at a better time. The libertarian worldview that made him and his father -- Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas -- populist heroes was on full display in his brief remarks before he introduced Romney and Ryan.
Yup, good old Rand messing up the libertarian message with a couple of warmongering losers.


  1. Look, as awesome as Dr. Paul is (and in my eyes he's a great American hero) there's a reason he didn't really made headway in anything but the education aspect of his message. In order to win "the game", you have to play "the game". Rand, while not quite as ideologically pure as his father, is far more likely to actually realize positive change, and you can bet his father is guiding him in the background. I personally have faith that Rand will not bend on the important issues and will not be corrupted by the system he's trying to fix. Will he have to suck up on some un-important issues sometimes? Unfortunately yes. But as long as he gets the Fed, TSA, Homeland Security and Dept of Education abolished, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. And his father (again - my hero) wasn't able to accomplish any of those things.

    1. He is not abolishing anything as is clear by his recent actions (see privatizing the TSA, sanctioning Iran, ending foreign aid only to those who dont listen to us). It seems to me that if they are not willing to touch defense which they are saying they will not then we will go over the fiscal, inflation cliff anyway. NOthing destroys the finances like continued wars. From a foreign policy perspective Obama is actually looking (slightly)better than Romney. If Rand was >50% libertarian he would not have campaigned for the warmongers.

    2. Bob in Boston, your argument seems to boil down to "the ends justify the means." I, on the other hand, believe that if one takes care of the means, the ends take care of themselves. Let me put it a different way. You say that in order to win the game of gaining control of the apparatus of violence and coercion, you have to play the game of promoting the apparatus of violence and coercion. Does that sound libertarian?

    3. Someone is going to control the apparatus of violence and coercion. Who do you want it to be? The idea that if we get rid of the formal institutions of violence and coercion that violence and coercion will disappear is a complete fairy tale.

      The whole anarcho-capitalist view, and the views of many other libertarians have an unjustified optimism about human nature. As Madison said, "If men were angels we wouldn't need government." But men are not angels. The only options are their guys in power or our guys in power. But our guys can change the system and reduce the powers of government, and hopefully they will do that before becoming corrupted themselves. That's not a rosy prospect, but that's the real world.

      We don't want a good crisis to go to waste. When this economy collapses, radical political reform will be possible. We need the people in place to take advantage of that. Rand is one of those people. There are too few others, and they are not as good Rand.

    4. How many times must this myth be propogated.

      Libertarians do NOT believe their system would eliminate violence, we do NOT view men as angels. To the contrary, we believe men to be self-serving (on however they define their own interests) and that anarcho-capitalist society would minimize violence and more importantly maximize justice.

      And how about nobody in power...seems like a fine idea to me. Spare me your "but that's the real world" also, we aren't idealistic fools, we merely favor morality. That type of argument was used in support of slavery, to consider abolitionism was to to not live in the "real world"

  2. I think Rand is in the "That which does not kill you makes you stronger" cult. He's taking positions which could kill his political career. In the event that they don't, though, then he'll be a stronger political operative in the senate and more able to effect the change we want.

    Or maybe I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. He's still not getting my vote.

  3. Looks more and more like he sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. Maybe someday he will realize what a poor trade it was, but I'm not holding my breath. Watching him fail alongside Romney will be a pleasant comeuppance for me.

  4. At this stage of the game what more could we ask for than that Rand Paul deliver the state of Ohio to Romney? That would be some very big time pull within an administration wanting to be re-elected. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen because Rand doesn't have that kind of influence.

    Rand Paul promised to support the nominee in his Senate race. He is doing that now, but it is downright silly to read into this any more than the usual going through the motions campaign politics.

  5. Your obsession with Rand is really clogging up my RSS feeds Bob. I'm sorry I'll have to unsub your feed.


  6. When I was a child I learned this famous poem...

    Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
    Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
    All the king's horses and all the king's men,
    Couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

    No Rand, Ben Bernanke does not have a monopoly on that poem applying to him only.