Sunday, May 27, 2012

Why I'm Not Excited About Rand Paul's Endorsement Of Mitt Romney

Many people are excited about Rand Paul's announcement that he's endorsing Mitt Romney in this election. 

Not everyone is excited about this endorsement. A lot of people who support Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul are not thrilled about it. Personally, I'm not thrilled with this announcement either. I am strongly opposed to Ron Paul because of his questionable and controversial background, his racist news letters which he initially denied writing but ultimately admitted to writing it, his endorsements from known racists Don Black and Lew Rockwell, and his foreign policy positions such as refusing to kill Osama Bin Laden or confronting Iran. Ron Paul is someone that conservatives and independents cannot support. 

I'm not a fan of Ron Paul's son either Rand Paul since the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. For example, Ron Paul is well known for his opposition to Israel despite his attempts to deceive people into believing he supports Israel. Rand Paul uses the same strategies as his father does by attempting to deceive people that he isn't against Israel
 
Given how Ron Paul feels about Israel, its not surprising that Rand Paul advocates cutting foreign aid to Israel as a way of reducing our national debt. The problem with this argument is that from an economic stand point, our problem isn’t how much we spend on foreign aid or on military campaigns. That is not why we are massively in debt. Cutting off foreign aid or bringing all the troops home from wherever they are stationed around the world won't make a dent in reducing the national debt. 
 
The truth is that we can sustain as many military campaigns as America needs if we weren’t for entitlement spending. Entitlement spending is the single largest driver of our current debt right now. In fact, our government is more efficient in the money it spends on defense related matters than it does with entitlement spending. It is true that our government spends more money than it takes in, but the way Ron Paul wants to reduce the deficit by reducing the amount we spend on national security is neither logical, practical or prudent. 
 
Its not just Rand Paul's views on Israel that bothers me. If you look at Rand Paul's views on foreign policy, he's just like his father. He's an isolationist. He opposed Senator Rubio's attempt to have the country of Georgia be admitted into NATO.  He wants us to get out of Afghanistan, opposed implementing sanctions on Iran
 
However, the old saying that politics makes strange bedfellows is true. There were rumors that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul formed an alliance with each other during the 2012 primary elections. There may be such an alliance with Rand Paul as well given his endorsement of Mitt Romney. Lets not forget that Rand Paul  never attacked Romney during the 2012 primary but attacked other candidates like Rick Santorum
 
Whether the alliance existed then or that Ron and Rand Paul can see the writing on the wall that Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee, its an alliance its an alliance that should not be forged by Mitt Romney and his campaign because Ron Paul has admitted that he isn't in the race to become President but that he's in the race for the sole purpose of amassing enough delegates so that he can use his delegates as a way of getting the Republican party to adopt his libertarian views on foreign policy, economics and other issues.Furthermore, he admitted on Fox News that he doesn't want the power of being the President but simply wants to influence the Republican Party on matters he considers important. 
 
Mitt Romney should not negotiate with Ron Paul or his son Rand Paul under any circumstances since it would be detrimental to the Republican party and for conservatism. Libertarians already have a political party in which it supports libertarian policies and Romney should not allow Ron and Rand Paul to hijack the Republican party just so it can adopt their domestic and foreign policy views
 
Furthermore, given that Ron Paul has semi-suspended his campaign and is retiring from politics after the 2012 election is over, he has long term political aspirations for his son and is setting the stage for Rand Paul's eventual run for President. As a result, any negotiation that takes place with Mitt Romney and either or both Ron and Rand Paul in this 2012 election is only helping the Pauls remake the Republican party into the Libertarian party. Besides, if Rand Paul is thinking about running in the Republican party in 2016, he's gonna have to do it on his own without trying to remake the Republican party into a different political party. 
 
Like many Ron Paul supporters, I'm not happy with Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney. But Mitt Romney and Ron Paul supporters can agree on one thing: Barack Obama must be defeated in 2012. 
 
This article was cross posted from Conservative Samizdat

11 comments:

cimbri said...

It doesn't matter much what Ron Paul says so give him a speaking slot at the convention. Iraq is done, A-stan is done in 2014, so what will Ron Paul rail about - well, mostly the Federal Reserve. Maybe Romney should throw them a bone and ask that the Fed be audited. It doesn't matter anyway, the Fed will cook their books however they need to.

Machtyn said...

Very good article. I disagree with some of the statements made about Rand. But time will tell.

Likewise, I am not very hopeful about either a Ron or Rand Paul endorsement. When Ron and Rand endorse Romney they will not follow. The Libertarians, especially the anarchists among them, are not coming to the Republican Party to join it, but to destroy and remake it. It is the R3volution they talk about. The will no more vote for Romney than they will vote for Obama. Some *might* vote for Johnson.

In any case, they are neither counted for nor against Romney or Obama, they will be among the 5% that vote third party and don't really matter. Could they help Romney win the Presidency? Only in some swing states, but only maybe.

Anonymous said...

deal with it. the country is at stake and you're more concerned of your petty issues. remember we/gop need to WIN to fix this mess.

Anonymous said...

Did you hear the news? The delegates are unbound... throw that around that Neocon brain for awhile.. FYI- Its your types who hijacked the Republican party... Pauls age has something to do with that... we where once a party of fiscal responsibility and less war before the neocon movement took it over. Listen to Ronald Reagan and stop vilifying Libertarian principles when you obviously dont understand them.
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."

Noelle said...

I wouldn't say that I'm exactly excited about Rand Paul's endorsement. It is similar to Rick Perry's endorsement in that it is an indication that the Republican party is rallying around Romney, now that he has won. That's a good thing, but I doubt it will change anyone's mind. I disagree with one thing that Rand Paul said. He said that Ron Paul was good for the Republican party because he brought all kinds of young people to the GOP. I respectfully disagree. The people who support Ron Paul still don't like Romney, and I believe that many of Ron Paul's supporters will support Romney now.

Rand Paul is a reasonable person, who hopes to have a future in politics, and he recognizes that given the choice between Obama and Romney, Romney is the far superior choice. (It's not even close.) But I doubt that Ron Paul's supporters will follow Rand's example.

Anonymous said...

When has Ron Paul admit that he himself wrote the racist newsletter?

Unknown said...

I strongly disagree, yet respectfully, with this article. Mitt is about unity. Obama is about Division. It wont hurt that Ron Paul or any of his Kin endorse Mitt. It may not help, but who cares? If one of the most liberal democrats endorses Mitt saying we are in trouble and he can fix it, we should welcome them. Your opinion is yours, but realize that we need the energy the Paul folks have to defeat Obama. Yes its true that we can win with out them, but why not become united and harness that passion? These opinions should be kept to ourselves. It only puts a wedge between us which MUST STOP!
-Mike in LV

Slick-Willy said...

Libertarianism is home to several of the fundamental pillars conservatism is built on. It certainly does not mix perfectly, but I've appreciated Ron Paul's willingness to voice the libertarian views that are very relevant to the discussion.

On the one hand you criticize Paul for not giving aid to Israel because you claim entitlements are our "real" problem. However, you fail to give Paul credit for being more free market when it comes to entitlements than anyone else on our side of the aisle.

I will not and have not voted for Paul, but acting like he has not been valuable to the conservative cause is misguided. We would be far better off now than we are if we'd listened to his fiscal complaints over the last 30 years.

leighrow said...

Ron and Rand Paul have brought up good points when it comes to domestic policy and smaller government. I am glad that their voice is finally being heard especially since the Republican party seemed to be supportive of large government and out of control spending during the Bush Administration. Bush's compassionate conservatism damaged the Republican brand big time when it comes to issues of fiscal conservatism. I have always been a Romney supporter and I am very happy to see him meeting with Rand Paul.

Anonymous said...

Foolish artical.

Anonymous said...

It is knuckle heads like you who want to turn America into a New World Order. You want the world to be run by America and foreign policy to be run by State Department Beurocrates. How can you say with a straight face that foreign aid and military spending for the wars in the middle east do not accouhnt for any debt? Are you totally stupid. I gurantee you never took an accounting or finance course in college. You where either a political science major or a foreign policy major. You probably live in Washington DC as well. I an sick and tired of idiots like you telling Americans we need to support this little country in the Middle East called Israel. If supporting Israel is so important to you, go raise a lot of private sector money and start a pivate sector fund for Israel. But stop asking the US governemnt to force all America to pay higher taxes so that thyey support your little coutry. If you beleive in foreign aid for Israel, go raise the money fronm the pricate sector, but don't steal it from the taxpayer. It is funny how you write this article and you write it on a so called right wing blog. You must think your audience is pretty stupid. Your thoughts of stealing from the taxpayer to give the money to another soverign nation just because you like the idea sounds like a flaming liberal idea!