The Fall Of Paul And The Failure Of Left-Libertarianism

[NewRightLibertarian]

Good grief, if a million times being said isn't enough, a million and one isn't going to make a difference, but, for the record.

He "jettisoned" me, and millions like me, when he endorsed Romney over his father in order to ingratiate himself with the GOP establishment.

There were other, lesser incidents similar to this.

This and the shameful McConnell endorsement were the two big ones that many grassroots folks felt were a knife in the back. Couple those preceived betrayals with the weak sauce BS from the presidential campaign, and it spelled doom for Rand.

And some token committee seats and the ability to run an embarrassing failure of a Presidential campaign weren't a worthwhile payoff from the McConnell alliance, no matter how hard you try to spin it LE.

[LibertyEagle]

This and the shameful McConnell endorsement were the two big ones that many grassroots folks felt were a knife in the back. Couple those preceived betrayals with the weak sauce BS from the presidential campaign, and it spelled doom for Rand.

And some token committee seats and the ability to run an embarrassing failure of a Presidential campaign weren't a worthwhile payoff from the McConnell alliance, no matter how hard you try to spin it LE.

I wasn't enamored with the campaign, either. But, I also didn't feel the need to run around here repeatedly stabbing him in the back, either. Or do likewise from other platforms like Lew Rockwell and Thomas Woods did.

[NewRightLibertarian]

I wasn't enamored with the campaign, either. But, I also didn't feel the need to run around here repeatedly stabbing him in the back, either. Or do likewise from other platforms like Lew Rockwell and Thomas Woods did.

I agree that Rockwell's criticism of Rand and support of Trump was very petty, but I can't fault Woods for spreading his honest opinion. Especially when he's usually been spot on with that opinion.

[r3volution 3.0]

Rand's strategy of throwing the grassroots in the trash

Rand didn't "throw the grassroots in the trash."

A large part of "the grassroots" abandoned him because, it turns out, they're not interested in libertarianism at all.

They're interested in more free$#@! or the mass deportation of scary foreigners.

[r3volution 3.0]

You don't think Rand tried to find 'actual libertarians'? Where are these mysterious principled libertarians that exist in such a large number as to make a winning coalition?

Yes, it's impossible to win with libertarians alone.

I'm not talking about abandoning the effort to align with other political factions, I'm talking about purifying our own.

...When half of the self-ascribed liberty movement ends up supporting Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders over Rand Paul, the liberty movement has become diluted.

[twomp]

Are you 12? Seriously. You keep whining and whining. When did Rand tell you he didn't want your support or your help in phone-banking, etc? Cause I never heard or saw it.


Yeah, that's me.

I've supported Ron Paul since probably before you were a glimmer in your father's eye and my Mother supported him before I did.


Not mad; disgusted with you pantywaists. So, Rand didn't pander to you enough. Whatcha gonna do now, eh? You got your way; he's out. Just post some more dog and cop threads? Cause I know that will turn the country around. haha

I didn't particularly like the way he ran his campaign, either. Did you want me to come on here and whine about it, like you did? Looks like it. lol

Oh please, you are the biggest whiner here! Rand Paul made a decision (that you supported) to distance himself from his dad in order to be more establishment friendly. The same people who didn't like it then are talking about it now. The only difference is that YOU are whining about everyone "being a backstabber." Who stabbed who in the back? Maybe some us aren't loyal dogs like you who come whenever we are called upon?

Rand Paul made a calculated risk and it backfired. He should have went home with the one that took him to the dance. No amount of crying and whining by you can change the facts. So next time instead of running as "establishment-lite," he should learn from this mistake and stick to his principles. The Rand Paul of 2010. Principle inspires people and this time around, he didn't run an inspiring campaign.

Nice try and spinning it so that we somehow "backstabbed" him though. You learn well from your masters at FOX about spinning. Rand Paul distanced himself from the movement not the other way around. Doesn't surprise me that you can't recognize that though. You've always been a bit slow.

[r3volution 3.0]

Rand Paul made a decision...to distance himself from his dad in order to be more establishment friendly.

No, Rand made a decision to distance himself from his Dad to be more appealing to the ~90% of Republican primary voters who thought his Dad was crazy.

[Anti Federalist]

Sure he did. Ron had announced he was dropping out.

How exactly does this jettison you? You are the one who chose that and to go around here repeating that all over the place, over and over and over again.

Then Ron was grifting all of us by sending out email pitches for continued support.

Which is it?

Is the son a lout or the father?

[Anti Federalist]

No, Rand made a decision to distance himself from his Dad to be more appealing to the ~90% of Republican primary voters who thought his Dad was crazy.

This is the fatal flaw in the reasoning of "straights" like you and LE.

You fail to understand that to 90 percent of GOP that you are trying to appeal to, the very idea of freedom is "crazy".

You're trying to sell them a bill of goods they do not want.

And that is not just limited to the GOP.

So unless you can codify a base of "dregs" (that's what you call them, I call them people who are tired of being pushed around by the system) then you might as well piss up a rope as to try and win on selling liberty.

They do not want it.

They want a "powerful leader" who will make the trains run on time and kick global ass.

[LibertyEagle]

Oh please, you are the biggest whiner here! Rand Paul made a decision (that you supported) to distance himself from his dad in order to be more establishment friendly. The same people who didn't like it then are talking about it now. The only difference is that YOU are whining about everyone "being a backstabber." Who stabbed who in the back? Maybe some us aren't loyal dogs like you who come whenever we are called upon?

Yes, because taking the time to call his campaign office to express my opinion about something he did was being a "loyal dog", as opposed to you bitching and moaning about it on a public forum with his father's name on it. lolol

Rand Paul made a calculated risk and it backfired. He should have went home with the one that took him to the dance. No amount of crying and whining by you can change the facts. So next time instead of running as "establishment-lite," he should learn from this mistake and stick to his principles. The Rand Paul of 2010. Principle inspires people and this time around, he didn't run an inspiring campaign.

No, he didn't. I totally agree on that. But, that is another topic from your own behavior.

Nice try and spinning it so that we somehow "backstabbed" him though.

Sure you did and you have already admitted it. lol

You learn well from your masters at FOX about spinning. Rand Paul distanced himself from the movement not the other way around. Doesn't surprise me that you can't recognize that though. You've always been a bit slow.

Waaaahhhh... Rand didn't kneel at my feet and tell me how wonderful I am, so I am taking my toys and running to RPFs to bitch and moan about what a meanie he is.

GROW UP.

[LibertyEagle]

This is the fatal flaw in the reasoning of "straights" like you and LE.

You fail to understand that to 90 percent of GOP that you are trying to appeal to, the very idea of freedom is "crazy".

You're trying to sell them a bill of goods they do not want.

And that is not just limited to the GOP.

So unless you can codify a base of "dregs" (that's what you call them, I call them people who are tired of being pushed around by the system) then you might as well piss up a rope as to try and win on selling liberty.

They do not want it.

They want a "powerful leader" who will make the trains run on time and kick global ass.

Actually, Ron had started bringing in people who weren't libertarian, or even like you. Rand was reaching more. Then he goofed. Majorly.

But, go on ahead and post some more cop and dog stories. I'm sure you'll get liberty by doing that.

[r3volution 3.0]

This is the fatal flaw in the reasoning of "straights" like you and LE.

You fail to understand that to 90 percent of GOP that you are trying to appeal to, the very idea of freedom is "crazy".

You're trying to sell them a bill of goods they do not want.

And that is not just limited to the GOP.

I fully appreciate that.

So unless you can codify a base of "dregs" (that's what you call them, I call them people who are tired of being pushed around by the system) then you might as well piss up a rope as to try and win on selling liberty.

They do not want it.

They want a "powerful leader" who will make the trains run on time and kick global ass.

That's a perfect description of the aforementioned dregs, many/most of whom went for Trump.

...to win, our candidates must get the votes of the clueless non/anti-libertarian rabble.

My point is that there's a difference between herding them in our direction, as part of a coalition, and blending with them: diluting ourselves with them.

Rand dumbing down the message and reaching out to non-libertarians didn't bother me at all; it was exactly what was required, and will be required going forward.

^^^growth

What bothers me is seeing the Lew Rockwell's of the world promoting Trump.

^^^dilution and decay

[NewRightLibertarian]

Rand didn't "throw the grassroots in the trash."

A large part of "the grassroots" abandoned him because, it turns out, they're not interested in libertarianism at all.

They're interested in more free$#@! or the mass deportation of scary foreigners.

So, to you, Rand is in no way responsible for making potential supporters enthusiastic and getting them active and engaged? This failure was nothing of his doing whatsoever in your mind?

[jmdrake]

The writer was referring to Ron getting any popular vote primary and caucus vote victories in 2012, not delegate pick-up victories.

Actually not true. In the U.S. Virgin Islands Ron Paul won the popular vote but Mitt Romney won the most delegates. So if Ron Paul got the most delegates but someone else got the most in the popular vote then the other person was declared the winner. But if Ron Paul go the most popular votes and someone else got the most delegates then that someone else was declared the winner. Here's how it works in JavaScript.

if(winner == "Ron Paul") {
console.log("Someone other than Ron Paul is the winner.")
}

[jmdrake]

No, Rand made a decision to distance himself from his Dad to be more appealing to the ~90% of Republican primary voters who thought his Dad was crazy.

In 2008 Ron was asked by moderator from Fox News if he had any electability because 70% of republicans supported the Iraq war and he was on record against it.

In 2015 Rand, in a debate, had to remind front runner Donald Trump that Trump wasn't the only candidate on the stage to have opposed the Iraq war from the beginning.

Trump and Cruz triangulated Rand by adopting Ron/Rand's non-interventionist foreign policy positions. And no, saying that we should carpet bomb ISIS does not make one an interventionist any more than Ron voting to go to war in Afghanistan made him an interventionist. And no, pointing out that Trump and Cruz took non-interventionist positions does not make one Trump or Cruz supporter anymore than saying that Dennis Kucinich was a non-interventionist makes one want Kucinich for president.

[jmdrake]

Actually, Ron had started bringing in people who weren't libertarian, or even like you. Rand was reaching more. Then he goofed. Majorly.

Some of the non-libertarians that Ron attracted were turned off by efforts Rand made bring in more non-libertarians. What I heard in 2008 and 2012 was "I might not agree with everything Ron Paul said, but at least I know where he stands." What I heard about Rand was "He confuses me. I don't know where he stands."

[Anti Federalist]

But, go on ahead and post some more cop and dog stories. I'm sure you'll get liberty by doing that.

In case you haven't noticed, dog killings by cops are actually decreasing, and last year was a record year for exonerations of innocent people in the prison system.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/re...rticle/2582290

So, for the person whose dog didn't get shot and for the innocent man out of prison, yes, we got a bit of liberty, and I like to think that raising awareness about it and contributing time and money to things like the Innocence Project, helped.

But of course, what the $#@! do I know, anybody who doesn't do it your way is obviously an $#@! and useless or a dreg.

[Anti Federalist]

But, go on ahead and post some more cop and dog stories. I'm sure you'll get liberty by doing that.

In case you haven't noticed, dog killings by cops are actually decreasing, and last year was a record year for exonerations of innocent people in the prison system.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/re...rticle/2582290

So, for the person whose dog didn't get shot and for the innocent man out of prison, yes, we got a bit of liberty, and I like to think that raising awareness about it and contributing time and money to things like the Innocence Project, helped.

But of course, what the $#@! do I know, anybody who doesn't do it your way is obviously an $#@! and useless or a dreg.

[Dianne]

Actually, Ron Paul killed us when he refused to take the tea party movement as his own. It was ours in 2007, but his shyness prevented the tea party being known as his. What a fabulous movement, he refused to take credit for, allowing opportunists to hijack our ideas, love, dedication, to call it their own. Thus, we now have Ted Cruz.

[Anti Federalist]

Actually, Ron Paul killed us when he refused to take the tea party movement as his own. It was ours in 2007, but his shyness prevented the tea party being known as his. What a fabulous movement, he refused to take credit for, allowing opportunists to hijack our ideas, love, dedication, to call it their own. Thus, we now have Ted Cruz.

She's right, you know.

Leaving that idea just laying around for anybody to pick up and run with, well, it sure did not help, that's for sure.

[Krugminator2]

This and the shameful McConnell endorsement were the two big ones that many grassroots folks felt were a knife in the back. Couple those preceived betrayals with the weak sauce BS from the presidential campaign, and it spelled doom for Rand.

And some token committee seats and the ability to run an embarrassing failure of a Presidential campaign weren't a worthwhile payoff from the McConnell alliance, no matter how hard you try to spin it LE.

Rand endorsed his fellow home state Senator and Majority Leader just like Ron Paul endorsed his fellow RINO Texas Representatives and just like Ron Paul supported Newt when there was an uprising against him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmJqSLNy8ms And Ron even went out of his way to endorse the world's worst Congressman in 2008 that actually decided an election that was within 100 votes. http://reason.com/blog/2008/08/27/do...s-ahead-with-a

And Ron Paul initially endorsed a slate that included Cynthia Mckinney and Ralph Nader before settling on a theocrat when Bob Barr refused to be on the stage with those Communist clowns. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...l.endorsement/

[r3volution 3.0]

So, to you, Rand is in no way responsible for making potential supporters enthusiastic and getting them active and engaged? This failure was nothing of his doing whatsoever in your mind?

That would be jumping to the opposite extreme.

Rand made some mistakes, but nothing that had a dramatic effect on the outcome.

It's always going to be hard for us because the propaganda machine is against us, but this year was especially bad because of events outside our control that moved the public in a very unlibertarian direction. And it's not really about Trump. Trump's just the symptom. The cause is the anti-Muslim/Mexican hysteria. There was no way for Rand to harness that. Unless he totally abandoned libertarianism, somebody would have always out-hawked him on immigration and foreign policy. Some of his strengths (civil liberties) suddenly became weaknesses, while others (fiscal conservatism) ceased being important to the voters.

[r3volution 3.0]

In 2015 Rand, in a debate, had to remind front runner Donald Trump that Trump wasn't the only candidate on the stage to have opposed the Iraq war from the beginning.

...which is not the reason for Trump's popularity.