-11 votes

Robert Wenzel: On the Sad Ron Paul Endorsement of Ken Cuccinelli

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/10/on-sad-ron-paul...

It is said to see Ron Paul endorse Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia's 2013 Governor's race.

I have taken my time before commenting on the endorsement, in order to study Cuccinelli's positions and actions as a public official. I find nothing special about him. Ron Paul has a great liberty message to deliver and these types of endorsements do nothing to advance that message, they muddy the water.

I'm told there are likely all kinds of pressures on Dr. Paul to make these type endorsements. One RP fan and sympathizer remarked to me, "He's only human." But this doesn't mean Ron Paul supporters should follow Ron down a bad road.

Cuccinelli is no libertarian.

Continue:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/10/on-sad-ron-paul...




Comment viewing options

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

Wenzel can be an idiot at times

This is one of them, if he can't see the bigger picture then he is just too dumb to understand.

Big picture

What is the big picture?

Standing on the edge of full economic collapse, change a political party that has been corrupt for 150 years?

(Sigh)

https://twitter.com/StonewallDP

Support these Liberty Candidates and find and add more !
http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

2016 Presidential Candidates Exposed!
http://www.dailypaul.com/307360/2016-potential-president

Original

Again

Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayor

Www.DCLibertarians2014.blogspot.com

Disagree

As this election was sort of a national bell-weather and Ron Paul's involvement in it - i think it is an important discussion regarding the goals and methodology of the Liberty Movement (ie: join arms with conservatives or stick to libertarian beliefs).

Spot on

(ie: join arms with conservatives or stick to libertarian beliefs).

Rand's strategy is all about joining arms with conservatives. Before it's over he's going to have to join arms with more anti-liberty conservatives than he has already, and he's going to have to make compromises and promises to win their support, and he's going to have to keep those promises, or most of them anyway, if he gets elected. The scope of that doesn't seem to have sunk in yet with most of his supporters here.

Rand's only chance of winning is to convince the liberty movement that it would be insane not to join arms with the powerful but corrupted elements in the GOP, and to give them what they will demand in exchange for their support, because the other choice is Hillary. The Cuccinelli endorsement was just a warmup exercise.

Dude

you're beating the dead horse with this gif.

allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

Endorsing

Exactly. Endorsing a candidate is a nice way of telling your supporters who to vote for. It should only be done in the rarest of circumstances, otherwise you open the door to crony politics.

Cooch is definitely not a

Cooch is definitely not a libertarian and the endorsements by Ron and Rand were mistakes that likely did more harm to the movement than good.

Never trouble trouble til trouble troubles you. Fortune Cookie

coffee_sponge's picture

Cooch is more libertarian than Sarvis

IMHO. And I agree with the Pauls' decision to support him.

We can't afford to hold our breath until the "perfect" candidate comes along. Cooch certainly wasn't perfect, but he was a good choice overall with a real chance to win.

Sarvis didn't have a snowball's chance, and he held statist positions.

Getting traction for a third party is such an uphill battle, if we could actually muster the resources to achieve it we would already have the resources to turn things around without a third party.

So what's the point?

All the Sarvis fiasco accomplished was to get a corporatist sleazeball elected.

winning

Some people do not consider "chances of winning" when casting their vote. Your vote is precious and one of the few ways we have to express our beliefs and goals. The vote should always be cast on principle and not collectivist trends.

Using your logic

Since voting is precious and one of a few ways to express (to whom) my beliefs. Since my belief is that the Rothschild crime family and their perverted followers have taken control of the creation of humanities money and used that power to create money as false debt upon every human.

Since they have unlimited money(creation) and unlimited control(from false debt claims) its clear they own and control the propaganda media, the TWO party system, The polls, and the vote count. Not to mention the government and the judiciary.

So I have to conclude that if I vote my prescious few ways to express myself, it will be perverted to make it appear that my expressions are in favor of the shill puppet candidate that they foist up as a winner or even worse they will align me with there shill puppet looser. Seems like a typical no win paradigm box.

So I will express myself in this way. Enlightened disengagement, leaderless revolution.

sovereign

nonvoting

Nonvoting is an option.

I was responding to a person who said voting for someone likely to win is some kind of criteria

More Libertarian

Was Gary Johnson more libertarian than Mitt Romney?... Why no endorsement?

No, there was something else at play here. I dont know what deals were made, but it stinks to high heaven

well put

Dr. Paul made a mistake. He is not perfect. We have to call them straight.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson