0 votes

I was done with Rand Paul a long time ago, and here's why

I was never really a fan of Rand (or Peter Schiff) for that matter. They were too squishy on foreign policy. War and peace is the biggest and most important issue. You can't be a little interventionist without losing your soul. Welfarism is morally wrong, but it is not as destructive as war. On top of that, I just found out the Rand accepted a neocon as a advisor into his campaign. Who in turn, ended up in the Ron Paul campaign.

In fairness to Rand, he did say many months ago that he would support the nominee. He asid the same thing about the future Senate nominee when he ran for that office. But this is exactly why I wrote him off. Anyone who says ahead of time that he would support the nominee when he doesn't even know who it's going to be, isn't serious about liberty. Would Gingrich or Santorum or Romney really be better than Obama? As the late great Harry Browne said, once a Republican is in office, the anti-big government movement goes to sleep. And in my opinion, it's a double whammy because the conservative Republican's anti-free market policies get blamed on the free market. This is done by the Official Left as well as the useful idiots that call themselves progressives.

Rand has been good as far as his voting record goes. If he had come out and said that Romney is a terrible candidate but I'm voting for him because he's the lesser of two evils, I could accept that. As Walter Block pointed out on Lewrockwell.com, Murray Rothbard would support one candidate over another even though they were both bad. But Rand didn't do this. He ENDORSED Romney. Name me one major issue where Romney agrees with the liberty movement.