Jack Hunter’s latest Southern Avenger article was critical of those who weren’t exactly enamored of Rand Paul’s recent statement concerning Israel and U.S. protection thereof if said nation was ever attacked.
Jack was critical of libertarians who tend to focus in one area of disagreement of the 20 areas of agreement. Well, if was just one thing I would agree. It is not I can assure you. It is multiple “things” that go all the way back to the campaign and beyond.
1). Holding secret meetings with neocons like Kristol and Senor and Scheunemann after he won the GOP Senate nomination in 2010 and continues to do so. There is no need to “meet” with vermin like them anymore than Rand plans to “meet” with the head Kentucky teacher’s union or anyone to his Left. These people represent no one but their little faction and need to be opposed, not appeased.
2). Endorsing Mitt Romney long well before his father officially ended his Presidential run. Yes, Rand was going to have to endorse Romney at some point, preferably during the convention. That’s not the issue for many. The issue was the opportunistic way in which he did so all the way back in May while his father’s supporters were getting their bones broken trying to do exactly what the campaign wanted in getting delegates for the convention. And no, Rand’s speech at the convention didn’t make much of an impression on me other his love of his Cambodian baker. Again what was the point of this little exercise, let alone using the official campaign’s website to defend said endorsement of a rival candidate for the nomination? Not to mention the fact it was the campaign of his father’s rival the son was now endorsing!
3). That the official Ron Paul 2012 campaign didn’t officially declare itself “over” when most of the staff and Rand as well knew it was over as far as their efforts were concerned and continued on throughout the summer collecting money from supporters when it was more about building a nice little fund for Rand’s future political use than it was running Ron for President.
4). Palling around the Middle East with a bunch of religious heretics whose commitment to Dispensationalism has wrecked the Republican Party, came in between Ron winning over many GOP voters in primaries and then give apparent blanket security guarantees to a foreign nation that U.S. does not have treaty guarantees with which is completely above his pay grade.
5). Defending a foreign company whose business is subsidized by the taxpayer and whose willful safety violations polluted U.S. waters and ruined the livelihood of thousands. Ron never believed the free market give a business the right to wreck another man’s way of life or his property.
6). Permitting senior campaign staff to either attack or marginalize grass roots supporters either for their “lack of decorum” or because they want “smash the state”. They used the most foul stereotypes and generalizations to belittle the campaign’s most die-hard supporters and split such supporters away from the campaign and in some cases away from Ron himself.
There are other things of my own accord which bother me about Rand but which I won’t waste time listing them here. What I will say is this: neither I nor very many other people joined with Ron these past five years because we thought this was a “game”. We did so because we believed in Ron and what he had to say and felt it worth joining a cause (not a “team) to advance those ideas for the greater good of the country and felt they would resonate with a broader electorate. We tried, we didn’t succeed, but we don’t believe what we did was in vain. Which why when Rand does what he does “playing the game” it dismays us (or least myself anyways) because we earnestly hope either he or many more can advance those ideas further along. But this will not be possible if the ideas we fought for are watered down, not fully understood or articulated or said grassroots supporters are continually attacked because weren’t not going to put all of our eggs in the Rand Paul basket the way others have. If you don’t want to argue with libertarians I would recommend you not starts fights with them.
It would also be nice if one of you fellows who have happened to cash in on the movement many people sweated and froze, starved for and gave their pennies to and were beat up for their trouble at least acknowledge that if wasn’t for us you either would be unemployed, working at a gas station, living in your parent’s basement in your case Jack still holed up at your little low-powered AM station somewhere near a Carolina swamp. Not all of us could marry the boss’s daughter or find some way into the “family”. But a little appreciation for the sacrifices made by others which helped to build the movement to where it is today and which got you to where you are today would be not just be a nice thought, but also a wise move to keep the loyalty of Ron’s supporters. I have my suspicions the claque would rather be rid of all of us so you all could run Rand 2016 by yourselves and you could certainly do so. But in so doing the grassroots will find other candidates and causes to support in the meantime. That’s not indictment of Rand, just acknowledgement (which has been true since Tampa) that we’ve decided to go our separate ways. In so doing, even Rand is not immune to criticism. Contrary to media impressions, this is not a cult. Nor will many follow simply because someone who shares the same last name says “I lead”. This is not Camelot and Pauls are not the Kennedys. Trust and support and loyalty are all things earned and there better ways Rand and his supporters can go about getting them from those involved right from very start of the movement than they are doing right now.
Jack, you and the rest of the claque can play the game all you like. More power to you. For myself and I believe many others, I’ll stick to “Risk” or something else if I want to play “games”. I’d like to believe politics is a little more serious than that.