Discover more from KY Stands Up
Did Rand Paul's Romney Endorsement Hurt the Liberty Movement?
Last Thursday night, when Rand endorsed Romney -- on Hannity, of all places -- I was as dismayed as everyone else. Facebook was raging: 99% of the liberty people walking in the same pissed-off shoes.
Then, on Saturday, I went to a liberty cook-out at a friend's house after the Kentucky State Convention. Attendees included a few in-the-know people as well as a guy who is near as smart as my husband. We angry people angrily peppered these guys with hard questions. We got answers. Not the ones we wanted, but they made sense to me.
So much sense, in fact, I've moved from anger to acceptance to full-blown support of Rand’s endorsing Romney. I get why he did it. In fact, I'm actually getting glad.
Here's why Rand's Romney endorsement can only help the liberty movement:
Without endorsing his party's official nominee, Rand could never be seriously considered for President in the future. Nothing would have made up for this oversight. If he ever wants to move up in the Republican party -- his party -- he had to do it.
Because of his father, Rand has political capital: us. Political capital is what it takes to be effective. It’s taken years to build this. Not endorsing Romney would be to squander this treasure.
Rand is doing what many of us have said all along was the smartest route to a return to a constitutional government: work from the inside.
Romney appears to be respectful of a Paul run for the White House. Should Romney win 2012, he'll be mindful of a 2016 primary challenger. If Romney steps too far from the expected s.o.s., Rand has buttons to push. Romney knows he would lose to Rand. Why? Us. We give Rand political clout, he gives us a powerful voice.
Rand is a Republican. We have so far believed him to be more a true Republican than Romney. There are certainly platform positions where they can agree. We're always talking about unity in the TEA party, about standing together in spite of our differences. Ok for us, but not for Republicans?
As a friend said at the cookout, "Rand is building credibility." If he is indeed still a liberty guy and will work to effect change from within the party, furthering liberty causes as he has been doing so far, he needs credibility. No endorsement, no credibility. Ever.
Actions speak louder than words. We need to remind ourselves of Rand's voting record before we accuse him of joining the dark side: http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/117285/rand-paul. Consider his recent amendment to FDA bill re. disarming the FDA, stopping raids on farmers. His very recent amendments to the 2012 Farm bill: one to legalize the sale of raw milk across state lines and one to remove hemp from the definition of marijuana.
Here's a story that, whaddya know, never made the MSM. Remember when the oil pipeline blew up in CA? Senators Feinstein and Boxer had a bill ready to go (imagine that) called the Pipeline Safety Act. It was set to be passed by unanimous consent: 24 hours, no voting, it passes unless someone objects. Paul objected. Feinstein and Boxer called him every name in the book, said he doesn't mind killing children, the whole nine yards. Paul said, "No, I just want time to read the bill." Then he was visited by pipeline lobbyists who said, "Oh, Rand, it's ok, we are good with the bill." So now he's suspicious. Turns out the bill exempts older pipelines from inspection and replacement. Some of those were 100 years old. So Paul adds an amendment to include those pipelines in the inspection/replacement requirements. Feinstein comes to him and says, "OH, gosh, I didn't realize that exemption was in there. Let me co-sponsor your amendment." Paul refused her.
Rand is not only standing up to old school, powerful Senators, but to the EPA and the FDA. He is not afraid to make waves. Who else is doing this in Congress?
Is Ron Paul a puppet-master, simply pulling our strings for profit?
If that is so, my instincts, principles and everything I hold dear must be called into question. Heck, if I could be so wrong about Ron, I could be terribly wrong about Romney and Obama. I don't think so.
If he's not a puppet-master, why did we follow Dr. Paul all this time? Because he awakened something deep in our souls and psyches we knew to be true. He spoke truth to power and we knew it. Not just intellectually, but in our very beings. He simply reminded us of a few simple facts... we were ready and the teacher appeared.
But why did Rand endorse Romney on Hannity???
Where else would his announcement have received such a powerful punch? Because Hannity has dissed his dad just made the announcement all the more newsworthy.
Why now? Couldn't Rand at least have waited until after the RNC to endorse Romeny???
Because now the announcement has impact. After the RNC, everyone will endorse Romney. Our uproar has not hurt Rand. In fact, it's likely our negative reaction has gained him even more credibility with the GOP!
Why didn't Rand let us know he was going to do this? Or why?
The good Drs. Paul are privy to a world of political maneuverings of which we have no clue. If we expect a Paul to swoop in on pure white wings and blow away Romney and Obama, we are seriously naïve. Do we really expect Rand to run everything past us before he makes a move? What most of us know about political strategy in The Show would probably balance nicely on my head.
Are we going to abandon Rand because he did something that doesn't fit our notion of principled?
Is it ok, as Jack Hunter suggests, to compromise political strategy for principle as long as you don't compromise principle for political gain?
We talk amongst ourselves about powerful forces running our country behind the scenes, men and women who hold no office. The Bilderbergs, the Illuminati… at the very least, the Rothschilds, the Morgans, the banksters behind the Fed. We've acknowledged that if Ron Paul actually won this election, he'd likely suffer some terrible drone-related fate.
If any of that wild speculation is true, demanding that our guy figure out a way to waltz in and disrupt the fabulously lucrative apple cart without having to play the game to some degree seems impractical.
Re. Obama vs. Romney Election Results
No President has ever won re-election in an economy like this. That historical fact coupled with the volume of “anyone but Obama” voters suggests that Obama is going to have a tough row to hoe, even with the Paul people refusing to vote for Romney. We are not that powerful. Yet.
Despite the fact that the Obamneys are flip sides of the same coin, there are two reasons why a Romney win would be better for liberty:
The party in the President's seat is the only party that can get things done. Rand and the other Republican liberty office holders will be that much more effective under a Republican President.
If Obama gets to appoint another Supreme Court Justice, our goose is seriously cooked for our lifetimes. As in charred.
Did Rand's Romney endorsement hurt the liberty movement?
I don't see how it could. The only people who can hurt the liberty movement are us.
There's my 2 cents for today. Look for me to change my mind tomorrow when I hear new information. It's a long time till November.