1 vote

Jack Hunter's Argument Does Not Address the WHEN, WHERE and HOW of Rand Paul's Endorsement

I love Jack Hunter, but the issue is not WHETHER Rand Paul endorses Mitt Romney but WHEN, WHERE and HOW. Jack focuses exclusively on the WHETHER, and makes a strong case that IF Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee, it is politically expedient for the movement for Rand to endorse him.

It is manifestly not politically expedient for the movement, however, for Rand to endorse Mitt Romney WHEN, WHERE and HOW he did. It is the circumstances surrounding his endorsement of Mitt Romney that BETRAYS rather than ADVANCES the movement.

WHEN: Just days after the GOP establishment sicked off-duty police on Louisina State GOP Convention Chairmen duly elected by Ron Paul delegate majorities and broke their fingers and dislocated their hip. These acts of violence were the climax of over a month of outrageous unlawful acts committed by the GOP establishment against the Ron Paul grassroots nationwide. Instead of condemning these acts, the official campaign's response to these outrages to date has been to lecture THEIR BELEAGUERED GRASSROOTS about showing more respect to their assailants.

WHERE: To a smug, self-satisfied neocon tool, Sean Hannity, who looked like the cat who just swallowed the canary. Hannity has treated Ron Paul (and us, by proxy) with utter contempt for the last four years. Watching Rand Paul abase himself (and us, by proxy) before that pompous ass made his PREMATURE endorsement of Mitt doubly hard to take.

HOW: In explaining his endorsement, Rand could make no credible argument that Mitt Romney had come our way on ANY ISSUE of importance to our movement. Later, on CNN, he said that there were no secret deals and, in essence, had abased himself (and us, by proxy) for nothing in return.

Given the WHEN, WHERE and HOW of Rand's endorsement, Jack Hunter's argument for the political expediency of a Rand Paul endorsement fails. Had Rand endorsed AFTER Mitt's nomination WITH some policy concessions from Mitt (and the GOP establishment) to show for it, then he would have attained the expedient political cover Jack argues for without BETRAYING THE MOVEMENT. But he didn't do that. Hence, Jack Hunter's argument for political expediency of an endorsement at some point, while correct, provides no defense for the WHEN, WHERE and HOW of Rand's endorsement of Mitt Romney.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If you understand some of the

If you understand some of the reasons for the endorsement, the timing of his endorsement appears to be more or less correct. He couldn't have waited until Florida.

And what were those reasons?

According to Rand, the movement got nothing for this. No policy concessions, nothing. So, why did he endorse when he did? Please explain.