-19 votes

Robert Wenzel's Open Letter To Libertarians: "Don't Be Fooled By Rand Paul"

Interested in everyone's thoughts on this.

Dear Libertarians,

"There is a big difference between Ron Paul and Rand Paul that appears to be missed by many. Ron Paul was not hungry to be president of the United States. If he would have been hungry, he would have booted his grandson in-law and that entire gang out early on in the primaries when it was clear they were positioning themselves not to advance Ron Paul and liberty, but to advance their own careers. Ron Paul just wasn't that hungry to do that and be president. He was satisfied getting the libertarian message out.

Rand Paul is different. It appears that he wants to be president. Wanting to be president changes a man, wherever they start off from.

This was Rand at the start of his political career, on the Federal Reserve and Bilderberg.

After Rand settled in, this is what Rand did when questioned about Bilderberg.

Rand also enthusiastically endorsed elitist loser Mitt Romney. Remember this?

If you want to become president, you have one thing in mind, you need to get to 50.1% If you hold libertarian views and run on those views you are not going to be president. I dare anyone to run on completely libertarian principles and believe they are going to win. Go ahead. Tell voters you are in favor of legalizing heroin and LSD. Tell them that the U.S. government should default on its debt and relieve taxpayers of the burden. Tell them you want to end welfare and food stamps. Tell them you want to end the DEA, TSA, FDA, DOE, FAA, SEC, CFTC and the rest of the government alphabet soup agencies."

Tell them you want to end medicare. Tell them you don't want to fight Muslims, or anyone else, anymore. Go ahead, see how far you are going to get. As I have stated before, there is nothing wrong with running, as long as you stick to principles and lose. It can be a method of spreading libertarian views. Winning, given the current voter climate, is when you become suspect.

Rand Paul is about winning.

Every time I point out Rand moves that are away from liberty, I get emails and comments telling me I am too harsh on Rand. I received many again today because of this post (Scroll down to the comments).

Continue Reading

Comment viewing options

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

Um

You mean UTAH's Senator Lee, right?

It is Senator Mike Lee, Utah.

I heard him talk this morning and wrote his name down on my list of "good guys".

Just keep an eye on his voting record

And legislation he brings forth. Actions always speak louder than words - that's how I found Ron Paul, and why I support him so. Sure, what he says in interviews, etc. may have some influence but the reason Mitt Romney, Obama, Paul Ryan, etc, etc are so terrible is because of their actions and their records, not because of other "trivial" things often used to fool voters. Don't be fooled.

What is the friggin point of this nonsense?

"If you hold libertarian views and run on those views you are not going to be president. I dare anyone to run on completely libertarian principles and believe they are going to win"

Then he holds it against Rand that he couches his message now.

In other words, Wenzel by his own words would would rather lose the Presidency than win it with someone who couches his language.

I have a better suggestion, how about you go find a cave, gather some supplies, and go live in it while the rest of us try to, you know, reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government by electing a libertarian President (even perhaps one who couches his language).

Trevor Lyman's picture

I think I see a trend in the

I think I see a trend in the arguments being made in support of Rand Paul in this thread. Here is what I'm seeing:

"But he can win!"
"Now is the time to stick together!"
"Rand is the lesser of the evils!"
"Rand is only compromising now so he can win, and then he'll do the right thing!"
"Rand Paul isn't as principled as Ron Paul, but he is good enough!"

So, it's interesting to note that all of these arguments could be used to defend someone like.... Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Obama, etc.

Try it out...

Should I write in Ron Paul? --- You should vote for Mitt Romney, he can actually win!

-- Don't vote for Ron Paul, now is the time for Republicans to stick together behind Mitt Romney!

-- Mitt Romney is the lesser of two evils! Anyone but Obama!

-- Mitt Romney is only compromising on some issues now to confuse the democrats and get their votes. He'll get rid of Obamacare 100% when he gets into office, and much more!

-- Mitt Romney isn't Ron Paul, but he is good enough for now. We need to get rid of Obama!

I'm not saying there aren't good reasons for supporting Rand Paul, I'm just saying if we're going to support him I'd rather not do it for all the same reasons that I've been calling 'unprincipled' for the past six years or so. Whatever our movement decides to do, whoever we get behind, we should be able to come up with better arguments for it than what I'm seeing here. And if you really want him to win you're going to need to do it anyway, so you may as well get started now.

I suggest we stop calling one another names and getting angry with one another and really start talking about policy and the issues that matter. I think the best thing supporters of Rand Paul can do is be honest about his faults and organize to influence Rand back in the right direction on those issues. That seems to be a much more constructive approach than the base level argument we're having here now.

There is nothing wrong with supporting a candidate and maintaining your ability to actively criticize them when they are wrong. The honesty we maintain with ourselves will bring much respect for our movement.

Not my reason

It's not my reason. I don't view Rand as an evil. I don't like his social conservatism, but we only have to wait out the social conservatives because in a couple generations, they'll have mostly died off. I do like his economic and fiscal philosophy. His stance on civil liberties is excellent, (though not perfect where it intersects with social conservatism). He wants to dramatically reduce America's foreign presence and end the wars. Right now this is about expelling the neocons from the party. Many have openly said that in a Rand Paul nomination, they will support the Democratic nominee. By the nature of the Republican Party, they will be totally repudiated after that. Once we've purged the neocons and socialists, then we can fight the culture war with conservatives for yet another re-branding of the party. For now, we need the social conservatives. That's my view...

You nailed it. That is

You nailed it. That is exactly what I was thinking.

Big leap of faith

It will take a lot of trust for us to stand behind Rand. In our hearts we want to believe he is just playing the political machine to our benefit, but like Wenzel said, he is playing to win. The PTB know this, and I'm sure are co-opting him any way they can. Look what happened to Reagan. Rand would have to be the most brilliant political mind in history to straddle both sides (libertarian/republican), become president and stay true to himself. There's a part of me that wants that very much, but another part that thinks its just not possible.

He had alzheimer's

Before dishing out on Reagan being co-opted, remember that he suffered from alzheimer's and what not. Much of his second term was ran by advisers. He may have not had the mental competence to do everything right. We may never know...

Wrong target audience

I suspect he's trying to play the voters on the right who haven't woken up yet. Remember, the more we wake up, the less our representatives will have to resort to things like this to win primaries. Let things like this help spur us on to work harder for the cause of liberty.

IMO Reagan WAS the co-opt

.

Well he sure had a lot of

Well he sure had a lot of people fooled in 1980 then.

Charlotte Iserbyt

You might be interested in listening to Iserbyt who worked in Washington under President Reagan in the Department of Education: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYNSXJbdchc

She is great. She needs to

She is great. She needs to work on getting her thoughts together a bit in that vid, but good info nonetheless. There is no question education in the 80's was a disaster, and the pop culture was idiotic. I did a research project on Reagan as a senior in high school and was failed because I focused on the Iran Contra affair and how complicit Reagan was. When I confronted the teacher after school one day I was told I didn't know what I was talking about. I presented declassified documents in my presentation with proof, but was still failed. I learned an important lesson that year.

Wow, documentation wasn't

Wow, documentation wasn't good enough for a high school teacher and you were failed because of the content of the report. I imagine you did learn alot. Probably alot more than I did about Reagan because I still had my head in the clouds thinking they were picking on him.

Yes, I should have told you to skip thru the first part of that lecture. I remember it being painful until she finally got to the content of her topic.

Well I kinda think that Reagan rallied the wagons which opened the door for the Bushes and the unsuspecting “moral majority” swallowed the neocon bait hook line and sinker

...

Hope Rand Paul will not turn out to be another weazel politician

Any supporters from the left of center brought in by Ron Paul will flee once Rand gets going.

EXPECT IT.

Still chasing those lefties huh?

Guess what? We don't want to tax the rich and we don't want to end Wal-Mart. Hell, most of us don't even want women to be allowed to have abortions. They aren't gonna like us, period. & I think that the Paul campaign really let MSNBC play them by going on there so much & having them pretend that they liked us just to hurt the republican party. I think that did more harm than good

Too Late.

~

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

If you are unsure about Rand Paul

I recommend watching this (entire) video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERI52UndhE4

(Please try to put your feelings about Jack Hunter aside as you watch it).

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien

That video sucked.

That video sucked.

Rand Paul is no Ron Paul...

but he is GOOD ENOUGH!!! He will get my donations and vote should he decide to run. He is 1000 times better than any other neocon puppet Rove will try to shove down our throats.

Yes

There will NEVER be another Ron Paul. Rand is the best hope we have for 2016.

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien

Just an observation

I can only think of two political figures capable of bridging the gap between libertarian purists (like Wenzel) and libertarian "practicals" (like Rand and many here); Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano.

My point being... the only way to attract the purists is to be a purist, or if not, to be so damn close as to be considered so or to have powerful, earned, liberty bonefides.

But as Wenzel points out, from a completely practical political viewpoint, if Rand runs (and if his intent is to try to win) he'll not attract the purists unless he changes and becomes more pure, and if he IS consistently purist, he simply can't win with the rest of the electorate.

My sense is that Rand (and his posse) figured this out long ago and he is operating under the mindset that to stay politically relevant he has to distance himself from many of the purist viewpoints. This explains all of his actions to date.

What we don't really know is if Rand himself IS a purist. My sense is that he is not. I take him at his word. He calls himself a liberty leaning republican. He's not a purist libertarian (in the same sense that his Dad and the Judge are.)

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

tasmlab's picture

Hope that he is a purist and is just lying?

Do we Hope that he is a purist and is just lying? That's kind of an ugly proposition.

This is sort of the liberal Obama fantasy it seems to me. If you are a lefty you just secretly hope that he is more progressive and anti-war in his 'true self' and that he is just pandering to get elected.

The Rothbard comes out in Rand's first book, but we don't hear it much on video.

Currently consuming: Gatto: "Underground history of education..", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

While all here united behind

While all here united behind Ron, the membership at DP runs the gamut from liberty leaning Republican to anarchist. How one feels about a Rand presidential run pretty much depends upon one's position on that scale. I doubt that many of us who fall towards the anarchist side of the scale believe Rand to be anything but what he says he is.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

tasmlab's picture

I think you take what they say and do as the real them

I think we have to take what people say and do as a reflection of their true selves/thoughts/person. I'm not sure there is another way.

I have to admit that it is a very confusing proposition to think that someone would lie and say something worse about themselves to appeal to more people, but then again, I guess folks - and I'm most everybody - might do that all of the time.

I have a fantasy/hope that Ron will speak more libertarian and less republican when he's out of office, but then I'd be a little disappointed if he seemed at all disingenuous while in office, even if his ideas turned out better than his in-office dialogue.

But then what nasty and picky standards I have!!

Peace!

Currently consuming: Gatto: "Underground history of education..", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

Says some true stuff, but

what is he promoting? Should we try to get a president who is really a pure libertarian? Should we NOT stand behind a presidential candidate who is entirely different from Mitt Romney and Obama (except in the sense that he engages in tactics that may win a primary and/or election). Of course promoting ideas is the most important, but as Ron Paul has stated, winning is the best way to promote those ideas.

Even if Rand is not perfect, and even if he doesn't believe exactly what I do on every issue, should I then vote for a third party candidate in 2016? What good will that do? Will that educate people on libertarian ideals?

I'm not entirely convinced my vote will even be counted in 2016, but if he's a candidate, he's got my vote.

A true Libertarian is about as far from Mitt Romney and Obama

as you could get.. Should we NOT stand by someone like that instead?

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

"If you thought Johnson was

"If you thought Johnson was divisive, Rand is even more so." - Michael Nystrom

Wenzel is a strict Libertarian so of course he's going to have

this stance and I commend him for it. The majority of the people speaking out against this article are not Libertarians.

If you're okay with half of the Ron Paul message, go for it, I am not. Rand is going to have to play L/libertarian hardball before I get behind him. Standing by my principles is more important to me than winning. In time, if I don't budge, it will come.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.