Will libertarians support Rand Paul?

[Meritocrat]

This discussion on Free Talk Live makes the best case for strict libertarians to relax their principles and support Rand Paul in a run for president. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujwmTcpnZ40

[cajuncocoa]

If the 2016 election was today and Rand was on the ballot, yes, I would vote for him.

However, I have warned many times since I came to that conclusion that Rand is as far as I will compromise...and my support for him will depend on how much more, if any, he has to sacrifice for the under-educated masses whose votes he will also need to succeed.

Stay tuned.....

[Carlybee]

it comes down to foreign policy for me. Not impressed with his recent comments on Iran sanctions. We'll see. He hasn't even announced yet.

[Christian Liberty]

He's running, I have no doubt about that.

I'd vote for him unless he did something exceedingly stupid, but I'm a little disappointed in him as well. Rand isn't his dad.

[jct74]

This discussion on Free Talk Live makes the best case for strict libertarians to relax their principles and support Rand Paul in a run for president. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkeXvjyKP14

honestly i didn't hear anything very convincing in that video and the radio hosts were not very insightful about anything at all... this video below lays out an excellent case however:

Why Libertarians Should Support Rand Paul



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpHdYE_nN9I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpHdYE_nN9I

[FSP-Rebel]

Since I'm a long time listener, a past financial supporter up until they started going out of their way to trash Rand, and having known these hosts in years past I feel like I'm qualified to give an ample opinion on this. First off, most if not all of these hosts are ancaps and Mark pretends that he isn't but he's very close. Also, the show is based upon iconoclasm so political strategizing to them is like talking quantum physics to an 8 yr old. The show is also a paid infomercial for the FSP and so it's in their best interests to show that liberty has no chance anywhere else and that means taking the opportunity to villify a guy like Rand because he is succeeding in building solid bases in the party all over the country after Ron started it. The hosts like Ron because he preached the unfettered truth and his two races have been good for the FSP, not sure why they don't think another race with Rand won't make a good focal point on NH and the FSP... but whatever. The fact is, none of them have been following politics nationally nor have really kept up like most of us have on the issues that Rand has been presenting nor realize how far he's turned the base of the GOP away from an aggressive foreign policy and favorable towards civil liberties. Furthermore, they don't want to analyze what Rand is doing and how he's doing it because they'd have to admit that he's doing all the right things nor would they care what Ron has to say on the subject. Normally, I'd just call in and try to have a discussion on the subject but I've heard a few do that same thing only to have been quickly dismissed and move on. I like the show and the FSP but my contributions go to candidates only these days.

[Meritocrat]

The case is made with photos and captions.


honestly i didn't hear anything very convincing in that video and the radio hosts were not very insightful about anything at all... this video below lays out an excellent case however:

Why Libertarians Should Support Rand Paul



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpHdYE_nN9I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpHdYE_nN9I

[ronpaulfollower999]

IMO, he has the nomination locked up as long as he keeps doing what he's doing. Even the neocons I know that didn't like Ron absolutely LOVE Rand. He has support from libertarians, neocons, moderates, etc.

[cajuncocoa]

I used to* go negative on Rand regularly, and got flamed here pretty badly. Funny thing, but it seems the tables are turned now that I've come out in support of him. Lately I wonder if the question really should be: do Rand's supporters really want libertarians to join them in support of him? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?424925-Is-Rand-Paul-Going-Neocon-on-Iran&p=5186775&viewfull=1#post5186775)











*disclaimer: I will still go negative when he deserves it.

[Carlybee]

IMO, he has the nomination locked up as long as he keeps doing what he's doing. Even the neocons I know that didn't like Ron absolutely LOVE Rand. He has support from libertarians, neocons, moderates, etc.

I don't question he has a lot of support but I do think there's a movement to draft Cruz. I'll keep saying that until someone takes it seriously or until Cruz denies it.

[69360]

We are 2 years out. People will still whine now, but when the time comes they will vote for him.

[NewRightLibertarian]

I'm still on the fence personally. I'm not to fond of the idea of running for captain of the titanic after it's already hit an iceberg.

[GregSarnowski]

I'm still on the fence personally. I'm not to fond of the idea of running for captain of the titanic after it's already hit an iceberg.

It does seem like Rand is being set up to take the fall, but hopefully it will backfire on them.

I mean a lot of people already erroneously blame libertarianism/the free market for the problems caused by the government (see the 2008 financial crisis), so their perception isn't really worth worrying about.

[BuddyRey]

People will still whine now, but when the time comes they will vote for him.

That's what they said about Romney too.

[69360]

That's what they said about Romney too.

I'm referring to people on sites like RPF. Nobody thought most here would vote Romney.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I think the "Rand isn't a real Libertarian" crowd is so minuscule, it is hardly worth considering. Ron had around 160,000 votes cumulative in IA, NH, SC. Rand needs one of those three states to win. Out of those 160,000 how many of those voters are part of the "Rand isn't a real Libertarian" crowd? I tend to think it is very low, particularly considering that exit polling from the primaries showed that only a small percentage of Paul voters would not support the nominee if it were someone else (I think the number was somewhere around 15% at the most.

Unless Rand gets up and panders to their particular pet issue, these folks aren't going to vote for him anyhow (and the pet issue varies from person to person) The effort to reach these voters far exceeds any potential benefit for Rand. He is far better off, reaching out to voters that did not vote for his father, because he simply cannot win with the Ron Paul voters alone.

[eleganz]

That's what they said about Romney too.

Romney is completely different from Rand Paul and you know it.

A lot of libertarians are trying to be objective and "cool" for now but when 2016 comes around, I predict many will fall in line. Not because they are predictable, it is just the right thing for all of us and what we want. What libertarian wouldn't want the son of Ron Paul as POTUS and being able to spread the message from the oval office? I mean..come on...no brainer.

[cajuncocoa]

I think the "Rand isn't a real Libertarian" crowd is so minuscule, it is hardly worth considering. Ron had around 160,000 votes cumulative in IA, NH, SC. Rand needs one of those three states to win. Out of those 160,000 how many of those voters are part of the "Rand isn't a real Libertarian" crowd? I tend to think it is very low, particularly considering that exit polling from the primaries showed that only a small percentage of Paul voters would not support the nominee if it were someone else (I think the number was somewhere around 15% at the most.

Unless Rand gets up and panders to their particular pet issue, these folks aren't going to vote for him anyhow (and the pet issue varies from person to person) The effort to reach these voters far exceeds any potential benefit for Rand. He is far better off, reaching out to voters that did not vote for his father, because he simply cannot win with the Ron Paul voters alone.
But Rand enables them to believe that libertarian means something less than what it is supposed to mean (not unlike Glenn Beck).

Related article here: http://lionsofliberty.com/2013/08/20/rand-paul-is-hurting-libertarianism-more-than-helping-it/

For some reason, some of you are not content to have some of us libertarians supporting Rand....it seems like it's important to you to make sure we know just how unimportant you believe we are. You would fail at marketing, CaptLou. You're a horrible salesperson for the conservative movement and for Rand Paul in particular. You won't be the one to change my mind about Rand if it does get changed....only Rand can do that. But you aren't doing him any favors with those who are not yet coming around.

[T.hill]

I used to* go negative on Rand regularly, and got flamed here pretty badly. Funny thing, but it seems the tables are turned now that I've come out in support of him. Lately I wonder if the question really should be: do Rand's supporters really want libertarians to join them in support of him? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?424925-Is-Rand-Paul-Going-Neocon-on-Iran&p=5186775&viewfull=1#post5186775)











*disclaimer: I will still go negative when he deserves it.

Yes

[Tywysog Cymru]

Rand Paul is our best chance, and he's so much better than Christie or Rubio or Bush.

[CaptLouAlbano]

For some reason, some of you are not content to have some of us libertarians supporting Rand....it seems like it's important to you to make sure we know just how unimportant you believe we are. You would fail at marketing, CaptLou. You're a horrible salesperson for the conservative movement and for Rand Paul in particular. You won't be the one to change my mind about Rand if it does get changed....only Rand can do that. But you aren't doing him any favors with those who are not yet coming around.

A major aspect of sales and marketing (particularly in the political realm) is knowing when you are wasting your time. Rand needs far more voters that his father had (in total for the entire primary season, upwards of 10 million, where Ron had around 2 million). Pandering to a small group of fickle voters, who question his libertarian credentials at every turn, is not in the best interest of the candidate nor of the activists. Rand will do far better by enlarging the coalition that he is already building by bringing in voters who chose Santorum, Romney, Newt or another candidate in 2012. Focusing too much effort on the small number of people who voted for his father, but won't vote for him is counter-productive and could also cost him votes with other Republicans considering he would have to compromise his principles and strategy by pandering to this small audience of potential voters.

[mad cow]

If Rand Paul is the Republican candidate for President in 2016,he will get more Libertarian Party votes than any Republican candidate has ever received in the history of the Libertarian Party.

Even when they ran excellent candidates like Paul,Browne and Badnarik,they couldn't get more than 0.5% of the vote.
If they run another Barr or Johnson,they could break their all time record of only getting 0.21% of the vote.

[LibertyEagle]

A major aspect of sales and marketing (particularly in the political realm) is knowing when you are wasting your time. Rand needs far more voters that his father had (in total for the entire primary season, upwards of 10 million, where Ron had around 2 million). Pandering to a small group of fickle voters, who question his libertarian credentials at every turn, is not in the best interest of the candidate nor of the activists. Rand will do far better by enlarging the coalition that he is already building by bringing in voters who chose Santorum, Romney, Newt or another candidate in 2012. Focusing too much effort on the small number of people who voted for his father, but won't vote for him is counter-productive and could also cost him votes with other Republicans considering he would have to compromise his principles and strategy by pandering to this small audience of potential voters.

I hope everyone on this forum votes for Rand if he runs for President, but I agree with the above. It's just the truth.

[cajuncocoa]

A major aspect of sales and marketing (particularly in the political realm) is knowing when you are wasting your time. Rand needs far more voters that his father had (in total for the entire primary season, upwards of 10 million, where Ron had around 2 million). Pandering to a small group of fickle voters, who question his libertarian credentials at every turn, is not in the best interest of the candidate nor of the activists. Rand will do far better by enlarging the coalition that he is already building by bringing in voters who chose Santorum, Romney, Newt or another candidate in 2012. Focusing too much effort on the small number of people who voted for his father, but won't vote for him is counter-productive and could also cost him votes with other Republicans considering he would have to compromise his principles and strategy by pandering to this small audience of potential voters.

Another major aspect of marketing is being careful not to insult anyone while you remain focused on your target market. For example, you may be selling a product where your target market is mostly in the 18-35 group....still, it would be really stupid to put out an advertisement that ridicules people over 50 because there may be enough people in that age group buying your product to affect sales potential. But do carry on. Rand may hire you as his campaign manager yet.

[Carlybee]

Well should be interesting to see how he plans to appeal to Santorum, Romney & Gingrich voters and reconcile that with calling himself a liberty candidate.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Well should be interesting to see how he plans to appeal to Santorum, Romney & Gingrich voters and reconcile that with calling himself a liberty candidate.

I did a little informal polling while canvassing for Sanford this year. Newt won our precinct, Ron was a distant fourth. Today, I strongly believe that Rand would win based upon the discussions I have had with voters.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Another major aspect of marketing is being careful not to insult anyone while you remain focused on your target market. For example, you may be selling a product where your target market is mostly in the 18-35 group....still, it would be really stupid to put out an advertisement that ridicules people over 50 because there may be enough people in that age group buying your product to affect sales potential. But do carry on. Rand may hire you as his campaign manager yet.

Again, your post seems to indicate that the "Rand isn't good enough" crowd is a significant number. It is not. The votes from 2012, along with exit polling suggest otherwise.

[cajuncocoa]

Again, your post seems to indicate that the "Rand isn't good enough" crowd is a significant number. It is not. The votes from 2012, along with exit polling suggest otherwise.

That's not at all what I said. This conversation goes back to post #18 where I commented that some of you are not content to have libertarians supporting Rand...some of you (and I'm talking to you here, Lou) want to make sure just how unimportant we are. You did it again right here in the post to which I'm replying.

I'm not talking about the ones who don't support Rand; I'm talking about those who don't and those who DO. Because when you're trashing libertarians (small "L" libertarians, not LP party members) you turn off those who might consider Rand in the future.

Marketing 101.

[Christian Liberty]

Rand Paul is our best chance, and he's so much better than Christie or Rubio or Bush.

Pretty much.

[CaptLouAlbano]

That's not at all what I said.

Sure you did, you said about a target market of 18-35, but insulting people over 50. More so, this is like a target market of 18-35, but insulting people aged 56, born in the month of May, with red hair, green eyes and who are left handed.

As far as a percentage of the electorate the "I won't vote for Rand because he isn't Ron" crowd is so small. And as I said, given that each person has their pet issue, it is virtually unreachable. Why bother, when you can use the time and money to influence the millions of people who voted for another candidate in 2012 - those are the people that need to be reached, not a small number of fickle Ron supporters.

[trey4sports]

I don't question he has a lot of support but I do think there's a movement to draft Cruz. I'll keep saying that until someone takes it seriously or until Cruz denies it.

I agree. Ted Cruz has presidential ambitions.

[Meritocrat]

Romney lost because Republican turn-out was low. Ron Paul Republicans stayed home. This segment is no smaller than evangelicals who were critical to the election of Bush. Rand Paul has to have the support of Ron Paul supporters to win.

[LibertyEagle]

Well should be interesting to see how he plans to appeal to Santorum, Romney & Gingrich voters and reconcile that with calling himself a liberty candidate.

What? Are you saying that if Rand is able to win over some of the Santorum, Romney and Gingrich voters that he is somehow not a liberty candidate?

Do you remember how many people who voted for Ron Paul had previously voted for Bush, Clinton, etc.?

If we are unable to reach the people who previously voted for someone else, we may as well throw in the towel now and forever.

[I<3Liberty]

If Rand is the GOP nominee, I'd vote for him just because he has a far better chance of winning the election than the libertarian candidate (or any third party candidate.)

Currently, Rand isn't as pro-liberty as the former libertarian nominees, but I'm pretty sure this is because he's trying to play politics and appeal to a wider audience instead of going full-blown libertarian and scaring the republicrats away.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Currently, Rand isn't as pro-liberty as the former libertarian nominees

What was 'liberating' about Johnson and Barr?

[I<3Liberty]

What was 'liberating' about Johnson and Barr?

Barr wasn't perfect and neither was Johnson... even Dr. Paul had his flaws. No candidate will ever be perfect, but if you ranked them from most libertarian to least, Johnson would be more libertarian than Rand.

A lot of people didn't keep up with Gary Johnson, but later on he did change his mind and take on more of Dr. Paul's philosophy. In some ways, he was more libertarian than Ron Paul. In fact, Gary actually had a higher liberty torch rating than Ron Paul.

[speciallyblend]

as a republican, NO! I will look outside of the failed gop.

[ManOfSteel]

as a republican, NO! I will look outside of the failed gop.

http://brandimpact.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/goaway.jpg

[compromise]

Barr wasn't perfect and neither was Johnson... even Dr. Paul had his flaws. No candidate will ever be perfect, but if you ranked them from most libertarian to least, Johnson would be more libertarian than Rand.

A lot of people didn't keep up with Gary Johnson, but later on he did change his mind and take on more of Dr. Paul's philosophy. In some ways, he was more libertarian than Ron Paul. In fact, Gary actually had a higher liberty torch rating than Ron Paul.

GJ was an idealistic pothead who does not understand the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. He is far less libertarian than both Ron and Rand.

[FrankRep]

GJ was an idealistic pothead who does not understand the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. He is far less libertarian than both Ron and Rand.

Gary Johnson has some interesting foreign policy views too.


Gary Johnson would send troops into Uganda, but not Libya (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-1ktig7Pwg)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-1ktig7Pwg


Gary Johnson would send in a Strike Force to fight Kony's army and "wipe them all out."

Krauthammer: That's very non-libertarian of you.

[I<3Liberty]

GJ was an idealistic pothead who does not understand the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. He is far less libertarian than both Ron and Rand.

Gary, Ron, and Rand, have similar goals. Where they differ the most is in their different approaches to reaching these goals.

Yes, Gary didn't follow the 10th amendment with his support for federal legalization of same-sex marriageand marijuana. We all know if these things were left to the states, neither of them would pass in all 50. While Gary's methodology wasn't entirely libertarian, his result would be more liberating for people that want to get a same-sex marriage or have some marijuana. If Ron or Rand became president and left legalization of marijuana and same-sex marriage to the states, we'd still have ridiculous numbers of people being arrested and spending time in prison for possession of marijuana, as well as same sex couples forced to move to other states just to get married and receive the benefits of a state-issued marriage license. Many libertarians supported this because privatizing marriage (the ideal solution) isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Gary isn't a pothead. He smoked marijuana to control pain after blowing out both of his knees, fracturing several ribs and his spine, in an accident.

[alucard13mm]

I say ron keep going to campuses. While rand focus on dinosaurs.

[jtstellar]

I say ron keep going to campuses. While rand focus on dinosaurs.

well we will certainly need both

[ajesbenshade]

He's running, I have no doubt about that.

I'd vote for him unless he did something exceedingly stupid, but I'm a little disappointed in him as well. Rand isn't his dad.


The Best deal struck is one where both sides walk away a little disappointed. Besides you can't tell me Ron Paul didn't raise his own son right. Or that he wouldn't go to his father for advice in tough situations. I also think many politicians, simply view the sanctions on Iran as a lesser action to actually withdrawing their "Foreign" aid.

[Christian Liberty]

The Best deal struck is one where both sides walk away a little disappointed. Besides you can't tell me Ron Paul didn't raise his own son right. Or that he wouldn't go to his father for advice in tough situations. I also think many politicians, simply view the sanctions on Iran as a lesser action to actually withdrawing their "Foreign" aid.

Rand is Rand. That's the bottom line. He makes up his own mind.


What? Are you saying that if Rand is able to win over some of the Santorum, Romney and Gingrich voters that he is somehow not a liberty candidate?

Do you remember how many people who voted for Ron Paul had previously voted for Bush, Clinton, etc.?

If we are unable to reach the people who previously voted for someone else, we may as well throw in the towel now and forever.

This is clearly true. The question is, how do we win these people over? Do we win them over by trying to convince them to be more like us, or do we win them over by becomming more like them?

This isn't really a comment on Rand per say, but I don't think we're going to have any meaningful success trying to appeal to Santorum supporters, Romney supporters, etc. If they're only supporting those people because of "lesser of two evils" or because they simply don't know what their candidate supports, that's one thing. My dad is essentially in line with Rand Paul on most issues, yet he supported Santorum in 2012 because he (wrongly) perceived the "not Romney" candidate to be a conservative, and he was still irrationally worried about Ron Paul's foreign policy at the time (I think I've been having some influence on him in this regard.)

But the people who actually stand for what Romney and Santorum stand for, I think our time would be better spent trying to make them former Romney and Santorum supporters than it would trying to tailor a candidate to them, if you get what I'm saying.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Gary Johnson has some interesting foreign policy views too.


Gary Johnson would send troops into Uganda, but not Libya (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-1ktig7Pwg)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-1ktig7Pwg


Gary Johnson would send in a Strike Force to fight Kony's army and "wipe them all out."

Krauthammer: That's very non-libertarian of you.

Wow hadn't seen that... he basically made a fool of himself on FP in that interview.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Barr wasn't perfect and neither was Johnson... even Dr. Paul had his flaws. No candidate will ever be perfect, but if you ranked them from most libertarian to least, Johnson would be more libertarian than Rand.

A lot of people didn't keep up with Gary Johnson, but later on he did change his mind and take on more of Dr. Paul's philosophy. In some ways, he was more libertarian than Ron Paul. In fact, Gary actually had a higher liberty torch rating than Ron Paul.

Gary Johnson would say goofy things like wanting to intervene abroad for "humanitarian" reasons to catch Kony.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Looks like somebody already beat me to it posting that interview.

[libertywanter]

Lifes all about finding a happy medium, and I dont mean a psychic that just charged you $5.99 a minute to communicate with your dead granny. It doesnt matter who you talk to, you will never agree 100% on everything. I think true libertarians should accept him as a step in their direction. Ron was a little to far Libertarian than most voting folks could handle. I think Rand however is that happy medium. I think if true libertarians ever want their ideas to succeed they have to take it in small steps, like Rand, and not one giant leap like Ron. Rand can appeal across the board, even to some of the right leaning left. I hope at least the libertarian party can put their votes to someone that actually has a really good chance of winning, I hope the old guys of the republican party can see past Ryan and give their support for Rand which in order for the republican party to survive needs to be their new face. And like I said even some of the left are coming to see the light of Rand.

Now after my little story, every time you see Rand you can think of him as a "Happy Medium" that will not only appeal to all corners as a happy medium, but as a psychic hotline reader that just got paid. LOL

[Christian Liberty]

Barr wasn't perfect and neither was Johnson... even Dr. Paul had his flaws. No candidate will ever be perfect, but if you ranked them from most libertarian to least, Johnson would be more libertarian than Rand.

Gary Johnson does not deserve mentioning in the same sentence as, well, you know who.

And honestly, I think its a little insulting to throw Johnson in with Barr either. Johnson was better than Barr.

Rand Paul is way better than Johnson, but you can't directly compare the two either because Johnson was more of a protest vote, whereas Rand is actually a serious candidate. Even still, I don't know that I'd support someone like Johnson in any respect anymore. I don't know.

[TheGrinch]

If you have indication that Rand's integrity has been lost, then by all means stand against it, but let's face it, those who've said that Rand only gets support because of his last name are wrong.

If it were another guy with integrity working for the end of the Fed, etc., we'd all be cheering him on all the way, even despite differences. It's because of the Paul name that some won't accept that he's doing things his own way.

[fr33]

If you have indication that Rand's integrity has been lost, then by all means stand against it, but let's face it, those who've said that Rand only gets support because of his last name are wrong.

If it were another guy with integrity working for the end of the Fed, etc., we'd all be cheering him on all the way, even despite differences. It's because of the Paul name that some won't accept that he's doing things his own way.

I think you mean working on "auditing the Fed". I'll be surprised if Rand takes up the slogan of ending the Fed.

[whoisjohngalt]

I used to* go negative on Rand regularly, and got flamed here pretty badly. Funny thing, but it seems the tables are turned now that I've come out in support of him. Lately I wonder if the question really should be:do Rand's supporters really want libertarians to join them in support of him?

Absolutely, that must be his core group. That's one of the reasons we get so upset when people disparage him here. We are attempting to act as sort of Libertarian whips, making the sort of case in the second youtube video that we all need to pull together. Herding cats, I know.

The other reason the Rand defenders including myself can be assholes is because we feel like this forum (and more specifically Rand's forum) should be a safe haven where we are allowed to work with other people who have already decided to support Rand. Having people who ostensibly want the same ends, liberty, come inside the treehouse and dump everyone's chocolate milk out just gets everyone pissed off.

I appreciate very much that you have been critical, cajun, it is of the utmost importance. I think it's a matter of how people critique though. When it's delivered in a condescending way as if we didn't already know the facts presented and if we only did we would change our minds, it only makes people more defensive and entrenched.

[whoisjohngalt]

Is there anyone who disputes that Rand is much better than any possible "viable" candidate on the three issues generally? I can't remember a member of Congress in my lifetime being such a powerful advocate for peace.

I don't think too many are concerned with his economics.

There are a few one-offs that are obsessed with a particular social issue *cough* speciallyblend *cough*, but this isn't going to turn too many away from him.

This is a conversation we have had thousands of times it seems and I really think it boils down to two perspectives. Those who are firm in THEIR position and see incrementalism as dramatic movement away from THEIR position and thus not worth fighting for. Then there are those who call themselves the pragmatists that see change in terms of the average position of Joe Schmoe, and say any sizeable movement towards liberty, even if it's incremental, is something worth fighting for.

Demanding he be even more extreme in a position when he is already the most extreme in the respective field just will never happen. So there is a point at which you cut your losses, but that doesn't mean disparaging Rand haters. I'm guilty. I want to be civil.

Cajuncocoa came around and if she can,anyone can. I won't give up hope on a fellow libertarian ever again.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Absolutely, that must be his core group. That's one of the reasons we get so upset when people disparage him here. We are attempting to act as sort of Libertarian whips, making the sort of case in the second youtube video that we all need to pull together. Herding cats, I know.

The other reason the Rand defenders including myself can be assholes is because we feel like this forum (and more specifically Rand's forum) should be a safe haven where we are allowed to work with other people who have already decided to support Rand. Having people who ostensibly want the same ends, liberty, come inside the treehouse and dump everyone's chocolate milk out just gets everyone pissed off.

I appreciate very much that you have been critical, cajun, it is of the utmost importance. I think it's a matter of how people critique though. When it's delivered in a condescending way as if we didn't already know the facts presented and if we only did we would change our minds, it only makes people more defensive and entrenched.

How often do libertarians come to power? Maybe once every 100 years if we're lucky. I don't see any libertarian on the horizon that's even in the same galaxy as Rand is in terms of having a realistic shot at the Presidency. I defend Rand with such tenacity because he might be our only shot within our lifetimes to see what a real libertarian/Austrian can do to turn this country around. I'm incredibly hopeful and curious to see what our ideas could do if given a chance. Rand represents that opportunity.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Is there anyone who disputes that Rand is much better than any possible "viable" candidate on the three issues generally? I can't remember a member of Congress in my lifetime being such a powerful advocate for peace.

I don't think too many are concerned with his economics.

There are a few one-offs that are obsessed with a particular social issue *cough* speciallyblend *cough*, but this isn't going to turn too many away from him.

This is a conversation we have had thousands of times it seems and I really think it boils down to two perspectives. Those who are firm in THEIR position and see incrementalism as dramatic movement away from THEIR position and thus not worth fighting for. Then there are those who call themselves the pragmatists that see change in terms of the average position of Joe Schmoe, and say any sizeable movement towards liberty, even if it's incremental, is something worth fighting for.

Demanding he be even more extreme in a position when he is already the most extreme in the respective field just will never happen. So there is a point at which you cut your losses, but that doesn't mean disparaging Rand haters. I'm guilty. I want to be civil.

Cajuncocoa came around and if she can,anyone can. I won't give up hope on a fellow libertarian ever again.

Great post.

[cajuncocoa]

How often do libertarians come to power? Maybe once every 100 years if we're lucky. I don't see any libertarian on the horizon that's even in the same galaxy as Rand is in terms of having a realistic shot at the Presidency. I defend Rand with such tenacity because he might be our only shot within our lifetimes to see what a real libertarian/Austrian can do to turn this country around. I'm incredibly hopeful and curious to see what our ideas could do if given a chance. Rand represents that opportunity.And that realization is what made me come around. Enthusiastically, I might add.

[cajuncocoa]

We need more like him in the House and Senate though.

[Bastiat's The Law]

One more thing. We've never seen a libertarian come to power in the modern age. All the previous figures that might qualify as libertarians came into being long ago. Robert Taft was 70 years ago. Coolidge was 90 years ago. Grover Cleveland was 120 years ago. Jefferson was over 200 years ago. I believe there's a tsunami of libertarian sentiment churning underneath the American psyche. Ron managed to tap into a sliver of it as a lowly Congressman and long-shot Presidential candidate. Rand has all the tools to unleash the dam. That's when we'll get our first look at what a libertarian can do with real power in the 21st century. I honestly believe we could usher in a new age with liberty as the core foundation.

[cindy25]

yes, unless Rand does something stupid with regard to Iran.

[Rudeman]

We need more like him in the House and Senate though.

I agree with this but I do believe some people get stuck on the "purity test" as if that is what determines whether a candidate is the best candidate. Would it be great for the purest candidate to be the best? Of course but often times that isn't the case. Of course everyone is certainly entitled to their own view point and their own vote but it is something that does hamper in the goal of having more representatives like him (not just in federal offices but in more local races).


Just my opinion though but I do think this ends up leading towards a lot of tension between people who generally agree on a lot of things.

[fr33]

I like how Rand's mail that his people are sending out now has "Rand 2016" on the header and return address. :) Just received an envelope from them a couple of days ago. Sure it can be explained that he's up for re-election then too but I choose to view it as a formal declaration of a presidential run.

[TheNung]

While I'll be supporting Rand in 2016, I still think it's a good think for people to call him out when he deviates from libertarian principle. If you still believe that voting can change things (I'm on the fence), then you have to believe that Rand is the best possible option for the next election. Still, we can't let libertarianism be misrepresented because regardless of what we think, the vast majority of people who have heard of Rand Paul think of him as a libertarian. If he caves on principle and something goes wrong, he'll damage the credibility of libertarianism in the minds of a lot of people.

I just can't help but think he's being set up to be in office during the next economic crash, although beating Hillary would be a huge battle.

[libertygold]

If the 2016 election was today and Rand was on the ballot, yes, I would vote for him.

However, I have warned many times since I came to that conclusion that Rand is as far as I will compromise...and my support for him will depend on how much more, if any, he has to sacrifice for the under-educated masses whose votes he will also need to succeed.

Stay tuned.....

Well said. His comments on marijuana and some on foreign policy are very disappointing for me. Like I have said before- sometimes it is actually better to lose with a principled candidate who can at least spread the message which then helps in other local ways, than it is to sell out the principles in an effort to win.

[Rudeman]

Well said. His comments on marijuana and some on foreign policy are very disappointing for me. Like I have said before- sometimes it is actually better to lose with a principled candidate who can at least spread the message which then helps in other local ways, than it is to sell out the principles in an effort to win.

What makes you think he's sold out on principles? It is simply messaging at this point. Rand has done a superb job with his messaging.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I agree with this but I do believe some people get stuck on the "purity test" as if that is what determines whether a candidate is the best candidate. Would it be great for the purest candidate to be the best? Of course but often times that isn't the case. Of course everyone is certainly entitled to their own view point and their own vote but it is something that does hamper in the goal of having more representatives like him (not just in federal offices but in more local races).


Just my opinion though but I do think this ends up leading towards a lot of tension between people who generally agree on a lot of things.

The only way you're going to get better and "purer" candidates is if someone blazes a path for them to follow. Rand will show the way politically and "soften up" the electorate to the liberty message. Someone has to be the first through the wall and Rand happens to be that guy. Future liberty candidates will have a much easier time after Rand works his magic educating the public.

[Rudeman]

The only way you're going to get better and "purer" candidates is if someone blazes a path for them to follow. Rand will show the way politically and "soften up" the electorate to the liberty message. Someone has to be the first through the wall and Rand happens to be that guy. Future liberty candidates will have a much easier time after Rand works his magic educating the public.

I agree with this, but some people get stuck on the "well this person is more pure" argument. I mean how many times have the LP attacked Rand for not being pure enough? If Rand is the GOP nominee the LP will run a candidate against Rand and will try to split the libertarian vote by trying to claim purity.

I hope I'm wrong about the LP but from what I've seen they're more interested in advancing their party than advancing libertarianism.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I agree with this, but some people get stuck on the "well this person is more pure" argument. I mean how many times have the LP attacked Rand for not being pure enough? If Rand is the GOP nominee the LP will run a candidate against Rand and will try to split the libertarian vote by trying to claim purity.

I hope I'm wrong about the LP but from what I've seen they're more interested in advancing their party than advancing libertarianism.

They'll run some goofball and get 0.42% of the vote like usual. I'm not concerned.

[libertywanter]

The only way you're going to get better and "purer" candidates is if someone blazes a path for them to follow. Rand will show the way politically and "soften up" the electorate to the liberty message. Someone has to be the first through the wall and Rand happens to be that guy. Future liberty candidates will have a much easier time after Rand works his magic educating the public.

ABSOLUTELY, I agree 100%, I feel Rand has already started paving the way for liberty as a Senator, and other senators and such have started following along. The other DC boys following the lead of Rand can see this is a popular thing, and they want to be part of it, I believe Rand is doing what he is doing for all the right reasons, but even if we have other politicians following along whether it be for publicity or not, it is a good thing

[Rudeman]

They'll run some goofball and get 0.42% of the vote like usual. I'm not concerned.

I'm not worried about it on the national level, they do have a much bigger impact locally though. I get it when the candidate is awful but it is counterproductive when there is a decent or quality candidate. I'm not sure why I would even expect the LP to put libertarianism above party...