I hope to God I am wrong, but I think we've been had.Submitted by darth_leroy on Wed, 08/29/2012 - 00:19
This is not by any means sour grapes. Dr. Paul will always have a special place in my heart for his body of work as a congressman, activist, economist and gentleman. I didn't always agree with him but warts and all he is one of my heroes and am proud to have supported him in the cause of liberty.
But early in the spring, something in the campaign just did not feel quite right. One of my dear friends, a liberal college professor used to call it the paranoid tin-foil spidey sense. I brushed it off as the cynicism and mild paranoia and distrust that often comes with being a libertarian. But it wouldn't shake. In a sea of candidates, there was a clear presumptive front runner and said front runner walks with a target on his back. Every other candidate in the race was bloodthirsty in their attacks on Romney, but not Paul. And in return, every time someone got close to Romney, he crushed them, except for Paul. Paul ran against the entire field instead of focusing on leader. I first chalked this up as a means of differentiating himself and his gentle manner. Paul is not your typical politician. But as the field thinned, he still did not directly attack Romney or vice versa. I chalked Romney's lack of engagement up to the fact that doing so would acknowledge Paul as a legitimate candidate. But even in the debates, there was no direct engagement. Sparking rumors they were somehow in cahoots. Again I dismissed this.
Then there was the announcement from the campaign that they would suspend active campaigning. Some chalked it up to a gaffe on Benton's part. But if it was a gaffe, why did he retain his job? Why was there no public clarification and why was there at least no credible explanation to the support base?
Then Rand endorsed Romney. What kind of tool won't support their own father especially since the name recognition was part of the reason that Rand won his office over the GOP establishment candidate? Unless such an endorsement would cost Rand something.
Finally after legitimately securing the number of state pluralities to be nominated, why was the campaign so willing to deal them away for what seemed like nothing more than beads in return. Paul got no speaking slot, I never saw that video honoring him. And if the purpose of the campaign was to takeover or shake the very foundations of the GOP in order to bring it back to its more libertarian roots, why lay down and take this obvious injustice? They can't hurt him, he's retiring. And fighting would only solidify the Paul base, garner more media attention and achieve what the campaign led us to believe was its purpose, shaking things up?
The logical conclusion for me was that it had something to do with Rand. I had read about the Medicare Part D passage in the last decade and the lengths at which the GOP leadership were willing to go were somewhere below despicable. Including threatening children. This had to have something to do with it but to what extent.
Then a friend and fellow Paul supporter who was much more involved than I, sent me the link below this morning and I was livid. It was a total hatchet piece done by the neo-con establishment meant to shake the faith of the Paul supporters. It was disgusting. It made my head hurt. But then I read it again, and again. And as much as I hated this trash, I could not poke holes in the logic, timing and reasoning. As much as I hated it. It answered questions that I could not and no one in the campaign was willing to.
Read it, and hate me all you want as some kind of whiner looking within for someone to blame. But also ask yourself if it is beyond reason or possibility? I think the real test is if like the last election, Paul endorses someone on the outside. If he does, I will thank the heavens and chalk it up to my own human insecurities and failings. Remember that we like to think of the rank and file Democrats and Republicans as lemmings who refuse to acknowledge the flaws in their logic and the dirt in their own back yard. But like them we are human beings subject to the same short comings like pride, hope, desperation, denial and hero worship.
But if Paul does not endorse anyone, why not? He cannot hurt the movement by doing so.
For your perusal, and forgive me if you've already seen it.
UPDATE: Seems Jesse Benton is more than willing to confirm this. Paul will not be endorsing Johnson. And those who suggest it is because Johnson nor anyone else was worthy of an endorsement, then why was Johnson worthy enough to be asked for one. And yes he did endorse Chuck Baldwin in 08, but he also endorsed three other candidates that year including Cynthia McKinney who has proven to be crazier than an outhouse rat and Ralph Nader, another one who's a few fries short of a happy meal. I still love the doctor but the last six months of the campaign were not about winning the White House.