Re: Nice dodge. You keep harping on ‘selling out’ and that Rand Paul is ‘selling out’ because Romney isn’t ‘pure’ enough.
Why wasn’t Rothbard, Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell ‘selling out’ when Ron Paul dropped out to make room for Pat Buchanan and Rothbard and Lew Rockwell worked to help get him elected? Or are YOU saying that Pat Buchanan is a more ‘pure’ liberty candidate than Ron Paul?
Again, was Pat Buchanan a better liberty candidate than Ron Paul? If he wasn’t, why was campaigning for him not ‘selling out’ when Rothbard and Lew Rockwell did it?
Also, just as a quick question, do you think Rand Paul wasn’t a sellout if he’d made the endorsement by saying something like, yeah they’re both worthless hacks, but Romney is marginally less worthless than Obama?**"
For the millionth time.. I wonder if it will finally sink in?
"This is how Rothbard started his “endorsement”:
Yes, gulp, I’m down to the grim, realistic choice: Which of two sets of bozos is going to rule us in 1993-1997?
This is how Rothbard ended his “endorsement”:
A victory for Bush will–at least partly–hold back the hordes for another four years. Of course, that is not exactly soul-satisfying. What would be soul-satisfying would be taking the offensive at long last, launching a counter-revolution in government, in the economy, in the culture, everywhere against malignant left-liberalism.
If Rand would have started or ended like this, I would have cheered on his endorsement. He did no such thing."
-
"My views on the difference between the Rothbard endorsement of Bush and Rand Paul’s endorsement of Romney, I have already discussed here. My conclusion was that if Rand is willing to come out and call Romney a bozo (as Rothbard called Bush), then we can connect the two endorsements, otherwise I see them as two different things. [Connect them if it’s a contrasting/comparision].
Rothbard clearly made his endorsement noting its limits. Rand did the opposite, he stretched his endorsement to make Romney appear better than he actually is, especially when Rand said that the positions between Romney and Ron Paul on the Fed are similar."
-
“It is one thing to endorse someone as the lesser of two evils, or as a bozo, it is an entirely different thing to suggest that such an evil person is actually a good person. This, as I have written before, is my chief problem with the Rand endorsement.”
-
"Rand has stated in interviews that he made a pledge when running for the current position he holds, U.S. Senator from the state of Kentucky, that he would endorse the presidential nominee of the Republican Party, and that is fine. But an endorsement along the lines of “A second Obama administration would be very dangerous for the country and my full support goes to Mitt Romney”, would have even worked for me. But, it is Rand’s comments beyond this, that Romney is somehow similar in his views to Ron Paul, which cross the line.
This is of no help to advancing the libertarian cause. It creates dangerous confusion. Those who are only casual observers of the political scene and hear Rand make the absurd claims that Romney is close on many issues with Ron, may result in some turning to learn about what is wrong with the Fed and what is libertarianism by (horror) turning to the Mitt Romney internet page and finding things like this.
Hunter was wrong in using Rothbard as a comparison to Rand’s endorsement."