Judge Nap not much interested in running for office, on board for Rand Paul 2016

[jct74]

Judge Napolitano was quite an engaging speaker, which brings me to the main reason I’ve written this article (and the tie-in to third parties). When the event was over, he sat down to sign someone’s book, and I waited and asked if I could ask him a question. I introduced myself and told him I wrote for a third-party blog, and that his name came up often as far as possibly running for office. So, I asked him: “Do you have any interest in running for office?” And his answer was–I wrote it down so I could report it exactly–

“Probably not–I’d like to see Rand Paul elected.”

So, there you have it!

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/11/judge-napolitano-on-whether-he-wants-to-run-for-office-or-not/

[specsaregood]

Reading the comments there makes it clear that many anarchist/libertarians are even worse enemies for a potential Paul 2016 campaign than even many liberals.

eg:


Rand Paul is not a libertarian, but the media is attempting to paint him as one, and that is why I continue to stress: Rand Paul is the most dangerous candidate in the race. He cannot be allowed to win!

[jct74]

Rand Paul is not a libertarian, but the media is attempting to paint him as one, and that is why I continue to stress: Rand Paul is the most dangerous candidate in the race. He cannot be allowed to win!

That's funny because I see all the time in the media about how Rand Paul is NOT the purist libertarian that his father is, the media seems loves to play up that angle. They love to compare things Ron said to things Rand said and make a big story out of it.

[Kotin]

Reading the comments there makes it clear that many anarchist/libertarians are even worse enemies for a potential Paul 2016 campaign than even many liberals.

eg:

madness... utter madness..

luckily most of these people vote 3rd party anyway and really were never going to vote for him.. but whatever small amount of purist douchebags we have lost will be compensated 1000 fold by the independents, mainstream republicans, and conservative dems that Rand most certainly has picked up.. fuck these purists, they would rather hillary win than Rand just because rand wont shoot himself in the foot politically.

[specsaregood]

That's funny because I see all the time in the media about how Rand Paul is NOT the purist libertarian that his father is, the media seems loves to play up that angle. They love to compare things Ron said to things Rand said and make a big story out of it.

Makes sense, there was that hitpiece article recently where they quoted santorum and huckabee advisors and they made it obvious that one of their main attack methods against Randal was going to be to try to turn his father's supporters against him.

[69360]

madness... utter madness..

luckily most of these people vote 3rd party anyway and really were never going to vote for him.. but whatever small amount of purist douchebags we have lost will be compensated 1000 fold by the independents, mainstream republicans, and conservative dems that Rand most certainly has picked up.. fuck these purists, they would rather hillary win than Rand just because rand wont shoot himself in the foot politically.

well said

[Crashland]

Makes sense, there was that hitpiece article recently where they quoted santorum and huckabee advisors and they made it obvious that one of their main attack methods against Randal was going to be to try to turn his father's supporters against him.

In the end, there is no way that Rand will get all of Ron's supporters. The question is how much of it Rand is going to get. A strategy of having the most hard-libertarians turn against Rand could end up backfiring because it will only help Rand distance himself from the most controversial elements that are less appealing to the broader base.

[Vanguard101]

Most purists, aren't in fact purists. It just makes them feel better.

[specsaregood]

madness... utter madness..

luckily most of these people vote 3rd party anyway and really were never going to vote for him.. but whatever small amount of purist douchebags we have lost will be compensated 1000 fold by the independents, mainstream republicans, and conservative dems that Rand most certainly has picked up.. fuck these purists, they would rather hillary win than Rand just because rand wont shoot himself in the foot politically.

the real problem (or real annoyance) will be them going out on the internet to sow disharmony.

[Occam's Banana]

Seems to me like there's plenty of self-satisfied smugness and condescension on both sides of the "purism" thing ...

[Kotin]

the real problem (or real annoyance) will be them going out on the internet to sow disharmony.

True but many of them pretty much discount themselves with many people based on their combative and aggressive manner.. It's better that these zealots are not trying to glob onto Rand like they did ron with 911 truth and other things like that.. Not that I have a problem with 911 truth or fringe issues, only their affect on campaigns.

[r3volution 3.0]

Ah well, maybe Jesse Ventura is available?

:rolleyes:


Most purists, aren't in fact purists. It just makes them feel better.

Indeed. In my experience, many of them don't really understand libertarianism very well, and have pet issues that contradict it (often arising from the ConspiroVerse). As for practical politics, no doubt some of them genuinely don't get it, but I think many are being deliberately obtuse, because they're more interested in playing martyr than in getting anything done.


Seems to me like there's plenty of self-satisfied smugness and condescension on both sides of the "purism" thing ...

But one side's right. ;)

[Occam's Banana]

Indeed. In my experience, many of them don't really understand libertarianism very well, and have pet issues that contradict it (often arising from the ConspiroVerse). As for practical politics, no doubt some of them genuinely don't get it, but I think many are being deliberately obtuse, because they're more interested in playing martyr than in getting anything done.


Seems to me like there's plenty of self-satisfied smugness and condescension on both sides of the "purism" thing ...
But one side's right. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

QED

[idiom]

Most purists, aren't in fact purists. It just makes them feel better.

They are libertarians because its not cool yet.

[philipped]

Honestly...I don't understand, Rand hasn't goofed too hard yet and the same people who helped him and his father get to where they are are abandoning ship because what? McConnell? Benton? TPP? Airstrikes with ISIS? I see it as fundamentally a purist would rather increase the size of the state then pick a legitimate chance to decreasing it by the opposition to Rand this early in the race.

I guess some people really didn't get the memo that Rand was not going to take the megaphone and do the Ron Paul Republicanism speech verbatim. I see his efforts as taking some of ideals and place them in a range of applications for various American constituencies while also adopting more mainstream positions where it doesn't hinder principle or fundamental notions. Rand Paul is simply attempting to take libertarianism, or as much of it as he can outside of the realms of internet-based discussion and advanced intellectual debate. And fortunately, his message has reached people his father never was able to tap on too.

[Christian Liberty]

Seems to me like there's plenty of self-satisfied smugness and condescension on both sides of the "purism" thing ...

Agreed.

I support Rand but I don't blame people who don't. And he's definitely not a pure libertarian. Who cares whether the media plays that up or not? Its true.

[Brett85]

luckily most of these people vote 3rd party anyway and really were never going to vote for him.

Most of them probably don't even vote.

[Krugminator2]

They are libertarians because its not cool yet.

I believe very strongly that is the case. Some people win by losing. They see Ron Paul as an outcast and that is their attraction to him. I have long felt that actually achieving liberty and a higher standard of living for the country is barely a concern for some people attracted to Ron Paul.

Rand is still a long shot to win but he is someone who could conceivably change the arc of this country. To me it is baffling how a libertarian of any stripe does not see that.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I've been disappointed and even sometimes frustrated by Rand in the past. But we have to recognize that he is our best chance at any meaningful change.

[Christian Liberty]

Most of them probably don't even vote.

I didn't vote last election. I'll vote for Rand but in general I see nothing wrong with not voting, in fact, it usually makes more sense than actually voting. That said, I don't begrudge people for doing what they want as long as its something that could at least conceivably help the liberty movement (voting for establishment Republicans does not.)

[Brett85]

I didn't vote last election.

Wasn't that because you were too young to vote? :)

[alucard13mm]

I've been disappointed and even sometimes frustrated by Rand in the past. But we have to recognize that he is our best chance at any meaningful change.

A true lesser of many evils in the worse scenario. He is not just better than one person he is running against.. he is better than all the possible people running for potus.

I don't think rand will Fuck us over and completely go the other way and disappoint dad and mom.

[Christian Liberty]

Wasn't that because you were too young to vote? :)

No, last election day (midterm election) I was in fact 19 as I currently am. I honestly forgot to register, and if I hadn't I don't think I would have voted for anyone who had a chance to win. Had I still been in NY I probably would have voted "anybody but Cuomo" but otherwise I didn't really care at all. Political theory fascinates me, but I am bored and disgusted with mainstream politics. Of course, I didn't have the opportunity to vote for anyone of Rand Paul's quality.

[Brett85]

No, last election day (midterm election) I was in fact 19 as I currently am. I honestly forgot to register, and if I hadn't I don't think I would have voted for anyone who had a chance to win. Had I still been in NY I probably would have voted "anybody but Cuomo" but otherwise I didn't really care at all. Political theory fascinates me, but I am bored and disgusted with mainstream politics. Of course, I didn't have the opportunity to vote for anyone of Rand Paul's quality.

Oh, I see. I completely forgot about the midterm elections for some reason. I thought you meant that you didn't vote in the last Presidential election.