-20 votes

In retrospect, Rand Paul's 2010 victory was the worst thing that could have happened to the liberty movement

From Wikipedia:

A Pyrrhic victory (/ˈpɪrɪk/) is a victory with such a devastating cost that it carries the implication that another such victory will ultimately lead to defeat. Someone who wins a "Pyrrhic victory" has been victorious in some way; however, the heavy toll or the detrimental consequences negates any sense of achievement or profit.

In retrospect, this is exactly what Rand Paul's victory in 2010 was.

But for Rand Paul's 2010 victory, Trgyve Olson and Jesse Benton would never have met.

But for Rand Paul's 2010 victory, Olson and Benton would not have insinuated themselves into key positions in the Ron Paul 2012 campaign organization.

But for Rand Paul's 2010 victory, the establishment would not have gained the lever it needed to persuade Ron Paul through these key advisors to unilaterally disarm politically, at the moment when our nation needed him most, and the establishment was most exposed and ripe for the taking.

But for Rand Paul's 2010 victory, our country's present and near future would not have been sacrificed for the sake of his now increasingly delusional 2016 political ambitions.

We wanted liberty. We wanted constitutional government. We wanted to restore America NOW, but all of these goals were subordinated by a subverted campaign organization to cynical political calculations of what might best give substance to the mirage that is the prospective Rand Paul 2016 Republi[CAN] presidential campaign.

And, with that exchange, we have lost it all. Thanks Rand, Jesse and Trgyve. Whatever you think you might have gained by this, we of the "fringe" (as Jesse likes to call us) know that you've been had....and so have we.

Comment viewing options

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

Rand Who? is a Neoconservative.

This became clear during his campaign for Senate. His actions afterwards make this very clear.

Rand Who? is not a libertarian, he is not principled like the old man.

reedr3v's picture

Short term perspective. The worst events

are: establishment of the Fed/income tax and federal control of the "education" system. Rand is a blip in the road, unless he chooses to take on his dad's mantle for real in the future, by re-learning the principles he heard as a child.


Only about 60% of the general population is politically active at all. Therefore, it is very easy for demagogues to pick up victories in general elections by appealing to the emotions of the ignorant, uninvolved 40% (like Obama did).

Now, of the 60% that IS politically active, only about 8% agree with more than 80% of Ron Paul's political beliefs. Ron Paul got less than 20% of the popular vote in a party that makes up less than 40% of the politically active population.

When you crunch the numbers, the only victories the Liberty Movement is going to have for a very, very long time until we can grow and expand the movement are Pyrrhic victories. I know that's not what Liberty optimist want to hear, but, it's the cold, hard truth. We're not just a minority, we're a super-minority and until we can at least become a minority, we'll have to accept every little rollback of tyranny we can get. The movement will not grow only intellectually, there have to be political Pyrrhic victories (like Rand's win) to get the rank and file Republicans on board with us.

Anecdotally, a lot of RP

Anecdotally, a lot of RP support comes from people who only know three things about him: he's anti-war, he's honest, and he's anti-Fed. People either don't know or simply ignore his views on the gold standard or property rights, which probably enjoy support with a very small segment of the population.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

There is this very misguided

There is this very misguided notion among the movement that if it weren't for all these things (Benton, or Romney, or the RNC rules), Ron Paul would have won the nomination.

People are forgetting that the majority of Republicans didn't like Ron Paul. That is what you should be trying to change.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

No, I don't think he would

No, I don't think he would have won the nomination. But we sure could have won more states and delegates, and demanded to be treated better. This would have increaese our morale and numbers!

Maybe. But I really don't

Maybe. But I really don't care about "demanding to be treated better". I don't care if Ron Paul is treated; if you win, it doesn't matter if they hate you, you freaking won.

For sure, the movement has made strides. He definitely gained a lot of supporters. But there is still work to be done. I felt throughout the campaign that it was just another way to spread Ron Paul's unconventional ideas and to push Washington to non-idiocy.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Well said. I started to have

Well said. I started to have a really bad feeling about Rand on the night he won. His "victory" speech spouted boring conservative platitudes, much like his boring, conventional convention speech last week. I tried to suppress this bad feeling and look at the bright side for quite some time.....but Rand kept on disappointing (with a few scattered exceptions).

Fortunately, I do not think Rand will be a factor in 2016. His convention speech was a major opportunity to put himself in the sun, and he blew it. Even his conservative talk show pals, pretty much ignored it. He has lost his usefulness to them.

My take on 2012

I wanted Rand to avenge his name, not only did he refrain from using his RNC speech to save graces with Romney, but I remember the first campaign was pure and fun, I think we can only elect a new leader if our fringe element lead the charge. I cannot get as excited about any politician the way I was about Ron in 2007, because we really felt like we were revolting more than voting. Now we vote and try not to appear as a revolution. The founders would agree that we should not use violence to make our point, but we shouldn't be shy("pussies") behind our candidate either.

They call us crazed cult supporters!?!, how else do you tell an average person from a person in revolt?!?

We should be visible and vocal never to let 1984 write their final chapter. I do not want to agree with this topic and maybe it still stings after last night, but Rand was a false hope and our momentum shifted and we wasted energy on all these extra causes, I personally really tried to learn patience and persuasion to help the effort,

but now looking out sayin.... damn this first day you accept that History would will not put Ron Paul in the white house, thomas jefferson loses 1796, and 1800!! This i cannot bear. A decade more until we see freedom, just one more decade, one more set of shitty leaders before you try democracy again.
The "FEDeralist" of the 1790s = the internationalist war hawks of 1972-now.
Maybe i should have acted crazy brought attention to this cause so that every dumb idiot now stuck with Obama/Romney couldnt have missed it.

This was only RP 1.0 the part where we tried to help you use the crumbling democratic process to defend yourself. Now with no false hope in voting and public fraud known to all, we begin RP 2.0 the live free version, where we take on the task of Ghandi or MLK or Thoreau.... we must commit civil disobedience in every possible crack of freedom left. Until the goon squads come for us.... we must use the following years to throw a complete revolt worthy of the founders we cherish.

Our chains are loosened from our shoulders, we only need strength now to lift them off.
Patriotic Senex

yt = classicalliberalism

Patriotic Senex

Jesse would be part of it

Any way you slice it. He's married to RP's granddaughter.

Some of us haven't given up

Some of us haven't given up and likely never will. We don't waste valuable resources by complaining. Disillusionment is part of living. If you must vent your frustrations then why not focus on those that are deserving of it? We have lost nothing. We will strengthen. We will overcome our opposition. The struggle will continue.

I think it's good to...

...look in the past in order not to make future mistakes. But to look in the past to say what should have been or could have been if this or that did or didn't happen just zaps out the inner strength. I would rather focus on what is and what could be done with what we now have.

There are only three things to be done now...

...that Ron Paul will not run third party:

1) Support Gary Johnson.
2) Buy gold, silver, food stuffs, guns and ammo.
3) Pray.

But not necessarily in that order.

Ron Paul should have been smart enough.....

Blame the advisor's if you like, but Ron Paul is not just a puppet.

Ron Paul knew what kind of a Campaign he wanted to run, and he saw the 10,000 sized crowds with his own two eyes. He should have been smart enough not to just bow down to bad advice, and run away, or capitulate and stop dead all the great momentum and energy behind this movement.

He should have known that his support level was large enough to create a big (and increasingly bigger) voting block, and that it was the RNC .. and not him who needed to now back off for the sake of the future of the Party.

He should have accelerated his Campaign, and used his 10,000 sized crowds with very public, and very visible rallies, and Campaign events -- from April all the way until the very end (August 29). He should have encouraged the Delegates to vote their conscious, and asked them publically to place his name into Nomination, as the 'best man' for the job. He should have given public speeches and statements stating clearly why he, and not Mitt Romney, deserved to be the leader of this Party, and why only he is capable of defeating Obama.

He should have been energized in April, as the rest of the GOP Field dropped out, instead of just disappearing from the whole battle. By Campaigning full-out at 100%, he could have split the Republican Party into two separate halves, and created a real Revolution atmosphere.

But Ron Paul didn't not want any Revolution. He preferred to sit down and shut up to make things more convenient for the RNC, and Romney's image.

He preferred to see Mitt Romney have a totally uncontested, and unchallenged path to the Nomination, and refused to say anything publically that was even particularly critical of him (unlike Rick Santorum).

In short, he just ran away at the height of his popularity like a coward.

Regardless of whatever advice he got, he should have been smarter than this, and also more sincere about wanting to maximize the public visibility, and maximize the impact of his Campaign, and the movement that he created.

Are you smoking DMT too now?

Rand Paul is the best Senator there is right now.

There should be more Rand Pauls, not less.

We just need to hold their feet to the fire more often. And don't worry Rand, we will remember 2012 when your election comes up (so you better start kicking ass in the senate again).

Fight the Ron Paul blackout on the Daily Paul (now 'P AU L'), put his removed poster back as your avatar:

So what? That's like saying

So what? That's like saying a particular criminal is the best-behaved inmate in the high security wing. Relative comparisons should be made carefully.

Hate to say it but,I agree.

Hate to say it but,I agree.

It is clear that at the top of our acceleration to the convention and with our arms holding signs high for liberty with his dad's name brazen on them, Rand dealt us a kidney punch from within our own tent.

His "compromise" served no observable function in forwarding our cause. An after the fact endorsement option would have been a safer bet for him in waiting out the convention before opening his mouth.

In the end, by endorsing Romney before the convention and then again on the RNC floor. He endorsed the travesties Romney and his campaign perpetrated on the liberty movement and its many hard working advocates.

After seeing the cheating and deception he still had an historic opportunity to rally us around the injustice and force the RNC floor to hear us. Instead he used the opportunity to reaffirm his earlier and abhorrent pledge to Romney and the evil he has, and will do on our fading Republic.

I will leave the issue of effecting his dad between the two of them. I for one can not accept his action before in endorsing Romney, and then his after the fact confirmation of that endorsement as the RNC relieved us of our rights before his eyes.

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

DJP333's picture


If it wasn't for Rands victory we wouldn't have someone in the Senate pushing the a$$ clowns to read the f-in bills they sign. Enough with all this hatred already.


"It’s not pessimistic, brother, because this is the blues. We are blues people. The blues aren’t pessimistic. We’re prisoners of hope but we tell the truth and the truth is dark. That’s different." ~CW

Rand's stands in the Senate are all well and good...

But they'll hardly compensate us for the hell the next four years under Romney or Obama will bring. We are in for calamities of Biblical proportions.

Economic dissolution.
World-wide war.
Possibly World War III.
Expanding Police State tyranny.

2012 was our golden opportunity to avert these disasters while there was still a chance to avert them. Now, we've lost that chance. Ron Paul won't even run third party for the sake of his son's "future" in the GOP. So, for Rand's sake, the country is lost. Is the dream of a Rand Paul 2016 presidential campaign worth such a price? Only five people think so -- Rand, Jesse, Trgyve, Jack...and, apparently, Ron.

FAIL - they still don't read the bills.

What were you saying again?

I think both of you have good points...

Ron wouldn't have been concerned with family business this year. After all, Ron did endorse in 2008 when Rand wasn't in the Senate. This lends support to the OP.

However, Rand's presence in the Senate has been an overall plus, even if he agrees with sanctions.

Although I would rather have Ron in the White House than Rand in the Senate, both points are valid to varying degrees.

Ouch. That hurts.

Ouch. That hurts.