but all it shows is that the error was in that earlier step of promising to endorse the party nominee no matter who it is. That's the moral equivalent of signing a blank check and handing it to a stranger. Given the record of GOP nominees there was a strong possibility that his promise would be a promise to support an anti-liberty candidate. That's a promise that shows very poor judgment.
Nobody forced him to make that promise. His dad never made any such promise, obviously, and for good reason. Rand should have followed that example.
What did he get out of it? A speech? Face time on national TV? The speech wasn't even Rand's own words. What Ron said, when given that opportunity, was: “It wouldn’t be my speech. That would undo everything I’ve done in the last 30 years. I don’t fully endorse him for president.” Rand should have followed that example as well.
*At best* Rand said things he didn't believe to be true in exchange for some perceived political gain. That makes him a cynical, calculating politician like so many others, but one with a liberty-oriented voting record. I hope he stays in the Senate, and I hope his political calculations in the future remain limited to saying words he doesn't believe.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: