When Ron Paul lost (some) moral authoritySubmitted by BruceMajorsLibe... on Mon, 11/11/2013 - 21:24
In the wake of Ken Cuccinelli's squeaker loss Tuesday the interwebs and local Virginia and DC political events are tortured by conflicts between Republicans, Libertarians, and Ron Paul and other libertarian Republicans.
For example, a former staff economist for Ron Paul's Congressional office, and an executive at Paul's Campaign for Liberty, not only defriended me on FaceBook, but banned me from the Virginia Campaign for Liberty group, for a tweet I made in reply to Ron Paul and for my posts defending Robert Sarvis against the Paul's and others. (My posts in the Virginia C4L group and those of other Sarvis supporters were being censored for weeks anyway.)
The tweet that got me banned was in response to Ron Paul's statement at a Ken Cuccinelli rally where he called all Sarvis supporters "insane," kind of a nasty and loose and sloppy charge from a medical doctor. (Did he intend to have them committed so they could not vote?)
He apparently thought we should bow to the Pauls because of their contributions. Uh huh. As we all know from Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, lots of great people get a little nutty, abusive and full of themselves in their dotage. My tweet he got hissy about was this: "Ron Paul says voting for Sarvis is insane, which is a subject some would say he is an expert on." He thought that I was claiming that Ron Paul is insane.
He doesn't see it as a claim that Ron Paul's experience should make him wary of charging that (other) people are insane because they disagree with his position, since that is what happened to him his entire career. I don't think anyone in the Paul camp realized that's what they were saying, because they share the general GOP delusional mentality that not only do libertarian voters belong to them, but that we are their children whom they may abuse. (And did Dr. Paul never pay attention to his own fans - did he really think calling us names and telling us "No!" would make us follow along?)
Overall I think the Paul supporters behind Cuccinelli, with their propensity to parrot lies, betray exactly this type of (I hope temporary) rashness and lack of subtlety and intelligence. The Paul's wanted to centrally plan the liberty movement, and collectivize our libertarian eggs, and put them all in the Cuccinelli basket. It was a bad investment. The Libertarian spent less per vote than Cuccinelli did since all spending for Sarvis was $380000 and Ken spent $15 million. The GOP spent almost 45 times what the Libertarians did. But they got less than 7 times their vote. And the GOP didn't have to first spend money to collect 18,000 signatures to get on the ballot. So apparently Republican candidates aren't cost effective.
The result of Ken Cuccinelli acting as a spoiler to keep the LP from getting ballot status is that now Libertarians will have to concentrate their resources again next time on getting the 10% required by the GOP coauthored ballot access law in the next gubernatorial race and do it all over again. And Rand Paul doesn't have have a reliable governor to support his next race. And Ron Paul has lost his credibility with libertarians. It's bad timing for the Paul's, coming in the same week when Rand Paul faces a second wave of plagiarism charges
This campaign may be a kind of watershed moment, when Ron Paul lost his moral authority and dug a new hole for Rand Paul 2016.