Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky may be the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton for president in 2016.
(Clip from 2012, when Rand Paul was stopped by the TSA.)
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky may be the only Republican who can beat Hillary Clinton for president in 2016.
(Clip from 2012, when Rand Paul was stopped by the TSA.)
Short answer? Nobody knows at this stage. Not even former Governor Mike Huckabee. Well, maybe he knows at some unconscious level.
Yes, he is going through the motions. He is visiting with supporters in Iowa, where he leads the field in the latest poll. And he has made trips to South Carolina. He will be back to both places for events again this Spring. He has mended fences with Paul Pressler and the conservative crowd of leadership in the Southern Baptist Convention. Their support of Fred Tompson in South Carolina, arguably, cost Huckabee the GOP nomination in 2008. Yes, he has been connecting with evangelical leaders for the last six years, leaders he ignored last time around. But that is all work he has to do to keep the option open. It doesn’t mean he will run.
Republicans are famous for sending “the next man in,” that is, selecting the candidate who has earned his turn. Nixon,
Ford, Reagan, Bush, Dole, McCain all benefited from that imagination deprived process. And many would say that Huckabee is the next man on the list. But the world “it is a changin.” Not many see Hukabee beating Hillary Clinton and the national media in a 2016 fall election showdown.
In the race for the GOP nomination, Huckabee will have FOX NEWS as a friend. They may not fall all over him like they did Giuliani and Christie but at least they won’t actively try to destroy him. Some at FOX will probably now tilt to Paul Ryan but Huckabee will get his moments in the sun.
Huckabee’s problem has always been money. Organically, the former governor of Arkansas will be able to raise more money on the stump this time, because he is a television celebrity. He won’t need Chuck Norris to tag along. People will pluck down $1,000 for a picture with just him alone, the FOX NEWS star.
But there will still be a gap. Evangelicals give to World Vision, Convoy of Hope, their local church and not much is left over for political candidates. Specifically he needs a big donor, someone who will chuck in a few million to a Huckabee super pak. Without it he is dead in the water. Rand Paul will have it. So will Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan. To look at it another way, Governor Huckabee is only ONE person away from making a strong run at the GOP nomination. He just needs one. But that one must be a multi-millionaire.
It may be a temptation for someone to take. History is full of things that turned out differently. Hillary Clinton is not guaranteed the White House. Just ask President Dewey, or President Muskie, or President Hart. Anything can happen. And Huckabee would be there to pick up the pieces and his billionaire would be at the pinnacle with him, like Raymond Tusk.
He needs for Sarah Palin to stay out of the race. She might get to thinking that a run would be a good career move. Like Rick Perry, she may want to get into the debates to win back some intellectual respect. Her involvement would suck a lot of air out of a Huckabee presidential campaign.
Then there is Karl Rove. He and his powerful pak will be watching. Ready to take out Huckabee if he gets too close.
Perhaps the best evidence of Huckabee’s chances are two numbers. The presidential preference polls, which have him as the GOP leader. And the bathroom scales.
If the numbers continue to climb in the GOP polls he will have to run. It is a case of “good stewardship.” A Southerner, raised with the Protestant work ethic cannot let such a moment pass without taking action.
But if the numbers continue to climb on the bathroom scale his subconscious may be saying, “Don’t do this to me Mike. You are rich and famous already and you won’t win.”
This latter process can be easy for all of us to track. Just keep Googling for the latest pictures. If the Governor starts getting trim in spite of all that good food and the difficulty in exercising when you are living on the road, well, his subconscious might be saying, “Get with it Mike. We’re going to do this things with or without you.”
Mike Huckabee can run but he can’t hide.
“I am no bully,” said Governor Chris Christie at his January 9, 2014 press conference. And then he proceeded to pummel to death his best friends and closest political advisers. Now some of those advisers are coming back to haunt him.
Christie insisted that he knew nothing about the hardball, political pay back machinations of his own office which led to the shut down of traffic at Fort Lee. It was allegedly payback to a mayor who had not supported Christie for re-election. It tied up traffic coming out of New York City for a day.
The governor claimed that his staff was to blame. They had lied to him, he said, and what they had done reeked of “abject stupidity.”
Christie said he had immediately fired his deputy chief of staff, Bridget Kelly, and was ordering his two time campaign manager, Bill Stepien, to withdraw his nomination to lead the New Jersey Republican Party.
Christie went out of his way to distance himself from another aide who had long been considered a high school friend, David Wildstein. “David and I were not friends in high school,” Christie lectured the press. “We were not even acquaintances in high school. We didn’t travel in the same circles in high school. You know, I was the class president and athlete. I don’t know what David was doing during that period of time.”
Richard Nixon had lost his presidency by trying to defend the Watergate burglars. “We have to help them,” he said, even though he had not ordered the break-in at the Democrat National Headquarters. It was the effort to get money to the burglars families that eventually implicated the White House in the scandal. And when the cover-up extended to the highest levels and Nixon was forced to fire his top aides, H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, he told that nation, “I feel like I have lost my left and right arms.”
Said Nixon, “They were two of the finest public servants it has been my privilege to know.”
Later, when Sir David Frost interviewed Richard Nixon he asked why the president hadn’t blamed his staff for their mistakes and fired them and kept out of the scandal from the beginning.
Nixon quoted the British Prime Minister William Gladstone who said that the first requirement for a prime minister was to be a good butcher. Nixon answered ruefully, “I was a poor butcher.”
Not Chris Christie. Promoted by pundits on the Fox News Channel as their new Catholic candidate (ala Rudolph Giuliani in 2008) Christie had no problem immediately excising his arms, legs, hands, or anything else that might come in the way of more power. And he did so decisively.
Haldeman and Ehrlichman may or may not have been two of the finest public servants in American history but Christie’s appointees were “stupid” and “liars” who needed to be put down immediately. This was one Watergate lesson Chris Christie had taken to heart.
No one stopped to ask why Christie had surrounded himself with “stupid liars” as his closest aides. The Fox pundits, unperturbed, insisted that the incident was only a temporary setback for their man.
Anyone with experience working for a president or a governor knows that they are not ignorant of what goes on around them although they carefully nurture this idea to avoid blame for the things they can’t fix. Former Governor Sarah Palin pointed this out.
Information is currency, it has value. It is like finding a shoe box with hundred dollar bills that are disappearing before your eyes, you spend them as quickly as you can, while they still have value. If you have information, any information, you get it to the president or governor immediately.
Picture the young staffer bringing in some requested paperwork.
“So what were they talking about at lunch, kid?” The governor asks. “Why couldn’t they have the meeting here and what was so hush, hush?”
“You don’t want to know, governor, its some political payback thing and you need deniability.”
The governor smiles. “Okay, what is it kid?”
And the young staffer coughs it up immediately.
“Huh,” the governor grunts, acting dumb, apparently engrossed in a memo. “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” And the kid, if he should ever surface, would have to tell the grand jury that he can’t really say if the governor understood or not.
Usually, such a scenario is much too subtle. Consider Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, who talked openly about selling a vacant U.S. Senate seat. But then, four of the last seven governors of Illinois have been convicted and imprisoned.
Now it turns out that David Wildstein, the Chrsitie appointee who ran the lane closing scandal is talking. In a letter through his attorney he said that “evidence exists . . . tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures, during the period when the lanes were closed, contrary to what the Governor stated publicly.”
Now we will see how Gladstone’s axiom really works. Can a man cut off his arms and legs and still survive? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. And how are all of those arms and legs supposed to feel about what has happened? Now, it’s time for Governor Chris Christie to pay the butchers bill.
“Well a mother, a real mother, is the most wonderful person in the world. She’s the angel voice that bids you goodnight.”
– Wendy to the lost boys of Neverland.
Most presidents are mama’s boys.
Many of them are actually named after their mothers.
We all know that John Fitzgerald Kennedy is named after his mother, Rose Fitzgerald. But Ronald Wilson Reagan is also named after his mother, Nelle Wilson.
Lyndon Baines Johnson is named after his mother, Rebecca Baines. Richard Milhous Nixon is named after his mother Hannah Milhous. Franklin Delano Roosevelt is named after his mother Sarah Delano. In fact, FDR’s mother used to tell him, “You are a Delano, not a Roosevelt.”
When FDR had his famous fireside chats with the nation on national radio, his mother was right there beside him. And on every Mother’s Day, she, herself, addressed the nation.
This phenomenon goes all the way back into our history. Woodrow Wilson was named after his mothers, Janet Woodrow and Rutherford Birchard Hayes was named after his mother, Sophia Birchard.
Now it isn’t a perfect trend or else John Forbes Kerry would have won the 2004 presidential election. He is named after his mother, Rosemary Forbes. And then Marvin Pierce Bush, would have been the Bush brother to win the White House over George or Jeb. He is named after his mother, Barbara Pierce. But when I wrote the book, The Raising of a President, it appeared as such a stark statistical anomaly that I had to find an explanation. I sent the data to several psychologists around the world.
Here was the identical response. When that mother took that baby to her breast she felt a special connection to the child that bore her name.
Huh? That’s it? She felt something?
It reminded me of the German scientist who had studied plants in the 1880’s and insisted that if we talk nice to plants they will respond. I’ve often thought. If talking nice to a shefflera Tree will help it grow an extra inch each year, just imagine the damage or the good we do to each other by what we say, especially to our children?
Sigmund Freud wrote that “the man who perceives himself to be the favorite of his mother is empowered for life.”
Abraham Lincoln supposedly told William Herndon, “All I am or ever hope to be I owe to my angel mother.”
Even as an adult President William McKinley insisted that his mother say a prayer with him before going to bed. At great expense, he had a wire laid from Ohio to Washington, D.C. so the practice could continue even when he was in the White House.
Never underestimate the power of a mother. Apparently, how she feels, or how you think she feels, can impact the rest of your life.
No wonder William Wallace wrote, “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.”
He won the CPAC straw poll, he is second in the latest national poll, he leads in New Hampshire, the first in the nation primary and now he is the favorite among likely voters in the first in the nation Iowa Caucus.
Senator Rand Paul must be doing something right.
There are still a few of the snubs his father used to get. Policymic ignored him as a GOP contender, insisting with a straight face that he does not break into the top five contenders. (Condoleezza Rice who polls 3% in Iowa apparently meets the stringent Policymic threshold.) But no matter how the power brokers want things to be, Rand Paul, is proving to be popular with the masses, representing the first real political movement since Ronald Reagan.
While the views of the son, Rand Paul and the father, Ron Paul are sometimes different, both represent a strong sentiment against corruption. The poll in Iowa may show Rand’s campaign picking up right where his father’s campaign ended.
By the way, don’t let anybody tell you that Dr. Ron Paul’s presidential campaign of 2012 was for naught. Dr. Paul showed great appeal to Independents, Youth and Hispanics. It was the very crowd that eventually went to Obama and sealed the fate of the doomed GOP ticket. And it is the group that the GOP now needs for any resurgence.
Astonishingly, in 2012, the smug power brokers in the Republican Party ridiculed and broke their own rules to marginalize and hurt Dr. Paul and his followers. While publicly proclaiming a “big tent” to Youth and Hispanics, the GOP security guards cut off microphones to Ron Paul Hispanics at State Conventions and escorted duly elected young Ron Paul delegates off the floor of the RNC in Tampa. During the campaign, Governor Mitt Romney openly laughed at him. No one’s laughing now.
A recent poll conducted by the McKeon & Associates for Freedom to Choose PAC, found Dr. Paul’s son, Senator Rand Paul, with a commanding lead over all other possible GOP, presidential contenders in the first in the nation contest in Iowa.
Here are the results of voters most likely to vote in the 2016 Iowa Caucus.
Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul 39%
Florida Senator, Marco Rubio 20%
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie 11%
Former Fla. Gov. Jeb Bush 10%
La. Gov. Bobby Jindal 3%
Condoleezza Rice 3%
Support for Rand Paul among Independents likely to vote in the GOP Caucus was striking and bodes well for a general election contest. 67% favored the Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul. 30% favored Governor Chris Christie, all other candidates failed to muster any showing at all among these voters.
In 2012, the New York Times and all of the national network media declared Mitt Romney the winner of the Iowa Caucus. Only months later did they reverse themselves to say that Senator Rick Santorum had won. This blogger was told that it took threats from the Governor’s office and from fellow GOP leaders, before the Iowa State GOP Chairman would finally release the votes from selected counties that put Santorum over the top. The Chairman, a Mitt Romney supporter, resigned shortly after.
For the rest of the year, the New York Times, the Associated Press and all the major networks continued to show that Ron Paul had only 3 delegates from the Iowa Caucus. Meanwhile, national polls showed him doing better than all other GOP contenders – except for Romney – in a head to head face off with President Obama, and tied within the margin of error with Romney. These were ignored as the national media continued to marginalize Dr. Paul.
In fact, the Paul supporters openly declared that they, not Santorum, had won the Iowa delegation. They contended that if the news had been reported truthfully and the following contests had been allowed to take place according to GOP rules, Dr. Paul would have arrived as a force at a brokered RNC.
The final Iowa vote on the floor of the Republican National Convention was 22 for Dr. Ron Paul and 6 for former Governor Mitt Romney. In a final irony, Dr. Paul’s Iowa state co-chairman was voted in to replace the disgraced Romney operative who had been running the State GOP and had withheld votes to assure that his man would get media credit for a win he didn’t earn.
Most people want fairness and despise the expanding corruption that pervades American society from its food supply, to its national media, to its monetary system to its government relationship with Wall Street and K Street and yes, to the corruption of its two major political parties. What good is an election if the only two candidates to choose from are produced by a corrupt process? How is that really democratic or free?
This recent poll in Iowa is a good sign. It shows that the mood of the people is beginning to reach the flood stage. It shows that the corruption that has bankrupted this nation and made a very few, very rich at the expense of all the rest of us, has finally been exposed for what it is.
It shows that Rand Paul commands a following much bigger and much wider than his father ever had. But it also shows that his father’s campaign was more than Quixotic. Dr. Paul did not run in vain, and all of those thousands of people who were shut out or whose votes were thrown away, or whose bones were broken or whose election was nullified, did not give up a year of their lives in vain. Dr. Paul was the pace car. And now the real race for America’s future begins.
Join the discussion on FACEBOOK now.
And who do you favor for the GOP nomination in 2016? Vote below.
Vote for your favorite for 2016
It has only been a little more than a month since Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster on the floor of the U.S. Senate. But it is looking more and more like a defining moment in American politics. It may be a defining moment in American history.
For the past few years, we in the liberty movement have had the luxury of being able to stand on the outside and lob in grenades at America’s corrupt foreign policy. But now, with one of our own, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky as a potential president, we have to face the reality of how to govern. What would a Rand Paul presidency look like? We got the answer this morning when he delivered a speech before the Heritage Foundation.
Keep in mind, Rand Paul spent seventeen years as an Ophthalmologist. Nevertheless he preformed what can only be described as Rhinoplasty – or a nose job – at the Heritage Foundation, outlining before the stuffy G.K. Chesterton conservatives in the audience a new foreign policy for the Republican Party, one that offers a better fit for new realities. Some Rinos will like it, some, who are growing fat as lobbyists for government subsidies, won’t.
Rinos (Republicans in name only) is the acronym applied to liberal Democrats who became Republican during the Reagan years, at the height of the Cold War. They agreed with Reagan that communism was dangerous and America should not accept its inevitable ascendancy and should contest it. Although less enamored by Reagan’s supply side economics and totally rejecting of Reagan’s social agenda they became an important part of Reagan’s winning political coalition.
But when the Cold War ended the Rino wars kept going. They lobbied for a bigger budget for the CIA, a bigger budget for defense, with newer and better weapons and more interference around the world. And all of this was before 9-11. What had been a moral imperative, to stand down an aggressive, criminal communist gerontocracy, morphed into a role of America as moral guarantor for the world.
“We have the power,” the Rinos pointed out, “it is unconscionable for us not to use it against injustice.” Of course, Rinos and their corporate friends made money off of this new arrangement.
Today, with the added impetus of the war on terror, American accounts for 42% of the world’s military expenditures. We have 50,000 jets, while our nearest rival, China, has 5,000 jets. We borrow money from China to put boots on the ground in Australia to defend Australia from China. Feeling safe? And, ironically, the strategy we used to bring down communism is destroying us as well. Our arms race bankrupted the Soviet Union and now we are close to bankruptcy ourselves.
Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans are locked into a fiscal death embrace, Democrats spending programs to reward their political constituencies and Republican spending money to reward their pals in the military industrial complex. Both sides are eating at the pig trough of public money while the rest of us are taxed to death, handing over our hard earned money to government favorites.
The deadly solution? The insidious hidden tax? “Quantitative easing.” It has wiped out the wealth of a whole generation and made a tiny oligarchy of rich and powerful.
Most of us in the liberty movement have really offered no solutions to foreign threats. Our foreign policy has been to close down all of our military bases, end all of our wars, mind out own business, and curb the power of the presidency. This we hoped would help restore the economy and turn our enemies into friends. Eventually.
In the meantime, what would our policy be if one of us were president? Are these ideals only fodder for our blogs and books and newsletters? Would we really ignore a nuclear Iran and pretend it will go away? Would we ignore terrorist attacks on our allies and say it is none of our business? While we all abhor the loss of civil liberties, how far would we go to use government intelligence to pre-empt a terrorist strike against us? Where do we draw the line? And is there a safe path back to that liberty movement ideal, without us getting ambushed along the way?
The Senator began by defining the current foreign policy crisis. The enemy, he said, was not terrorism, which is after all a tactic, but rather radical Islam, something that many politicians have been reluctant to acknowledge. Rand pointed out that it is not the tiny percentage it is often alleged to be by politically correct, wishful thinking, American politicians. Rather it is a “robust minority.”
Part of Rand Paul’s new foreign policy was a list of liberty movement basics, although couched in language that Rinos, who now dominate the Heritage Foundation, can swallow. And more often than not they were posed as questions. He called for an end to war by executive order. He quoted Madison who warned that war is always more favored by the chief executive.
He complained about the irrelevancy of congress pointing out that the president sought permission to use force in Libya from NATO, the United Nations, from anyone but the US Congress where the power belonged.
“The debate over war is the single most important debate in this country and it should not be glossed over.”
Invoking his recent trip to Israel he pointed out that the debate about a nuclear Iran is underway in Jerusalem but not in Washington.
“Where are the calls for moderation, restraint?”
He alluded to the “unintended consequences” of war, a favorite subject of his father, Dr. Ron Paul. “Why are we so quick to supply weapons for Syrian rebels? Will they respect the rights of Christians in their new government?“
Rand Paul asked the room full of Rinos, many of them lobbyists for corporate arms manufacturers, “Should we keep sending weapons to countries that are hostile to Israel and the United States?”
But if the Senator called for fewer military bases, less soldiers overseas, a less trigger happy foreign policy with less power residing with the presidency, he also called for a more coordinated and ambitious strategy in the war against radical Islam. This will be a tough pill to swallow for some diehard Libertarians.
He compared this crisis to the challenge of the Cold War. And called for a modern version of Cold War containment, a policy that is not entirely military but not all diplomatic either. Countering radical Islam, the Senator declared, demands a worldwide strategy. When there is war, we should go into win it and we should not go in alone.
Rand Paul said, “What the United States needs is a policy that finds that middle path.” He called for a “foreign policy that recognizes the danger of bombing countries because of the fear of what they might do.” But also one that legitimately acts decisively when danger is known.
He pointed out that “A foreign policy that is everywhere all of the time is an extreme [policy] on the other hand a foreign policy that is nowhere, any of the time, is also an extreme [policy].”
How will liberty movement leaders accept this call for a foreign policy more engaged than our ideal? How will neo-conservatives and Rinos accept a future where American doesn’t bomb first and ask questions later?
Rand Paul ended his speech with these words, “I will be a voice to those who want a saner and sounder foreign policy.”
Nietzsche once said that “In individuals insanity is rare. But in nations it is the rule.” We can only hope that our nation will come out of its stupor and find the wisdom in Rand Paul’s clarion call.
For Republicans, there is a silver lining to the re-election of Barack Obama. The door is now open for real change in 2016. The recently adopted Romney Rules at the RNC, which would have locked out any true democratic participation and guaranteed eight more years of GOP establishment, top-down, Brahman-style, domination, are now moot. The gate is open.
The change that will be debated in the next presidential election will not be about tax percentages, or troop withdrawal timetables, or welfare for Big Bird, or who should be the next chairman of the Federal Reserve. The change that will be debated will be about fundamentals, about monetary policy, about the philosophical underpinnings of our foreign policy, about the relevancy of the American Constitution and where we are headed as a people.
It will not be the red team against the blue team, espousing the same things in different degrees, rather it will be about real differences.
Should the Federal Reserved continue to operate in secret, manipulating the monetary system be creating wealth for its own board members and their corporate cronies, robbing the poor and the middle class? Or should its work be transparent and accountable? Remember, 80% now want the FED audited, in 2012 it was not even mentioned by either candidate.
For the first time in a national election the housing collapse, which so devastated the wealth of the middle class, may actually be addressed.
Corruption on Wall Street, K Street and in the corridors of Capitol Hill will become issues.
One man can guarantee this discussion.
After three elections in which winning candidates have promised to end nation building there is a potential president who might actually do it, bring home our soldiers to guard our own borders instead of the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan. For the first time, finally bring home our troops from Germany and Japan where since World War II they have been stationed, pumping their money into local economies, while America descends into the economic toilet.
One man can stop the wars without end.
One man will champion civil liberties, reverse the fast paced trend toward ever more powerful, centralized government, that dictates what our children think, what we wear and eat and how we flush our toilets. One man will raise the issue of how government is relentlessly trying to snuff out our conversation online.
One man , an accomplished doctor from a family of doctors, born and raised and tutored in liberty, has both the character and the political skill and fundraising base to get elected. And that one man is Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.
Oh yes, I know, Liberty fans, he endorsed Mitt Romney for president. Too early for some of us. But then that is exactly why he is now positioned to actually win the 2016 GOP nomination and the presidency. Because a Rand Paul campaign would be inclusive and supportive and generous in spirit. And to win it he will need all the support he can get.
This is the lesson of this past election. If Romney and those recalcitrant GOP bosses didn’t need us in 2012, we will need them in 2016. And we will have to forgive them and honor them and cherish them.
A Rand Paul campaign won’t shut out the evangelical Christians and tell Sarah Palin she isn’t wanted or needed at the national convention. It won’t hire thugs to infiltrate our opponents campaigns and wear their clothes and pass out phony ballots even after we have won. A Rand Paul campaign will be generous in victory.
In a Rand Paul campaign, Peter Thiel will sit down with David Lane. It will be about liberty, everybody’s liberty and the protection of each other’s God given, Constitutional guaranteed rights. And this campaign will win.
In some respects, we are the weak link. We in the Liberty Movement will have to decide whether we are willing to become more than theorists but also successful, winning, political activists. Some of the debates will get scary as our candidate may decide that we need to cut our military bases from 900 to 75, instead of zero. He will be backing us away from the abyss, on his own timetable and it may be too rapid for the general public and not enough for some of us.
But in the end, we can’t govern American if we can’t govern ourselves.
The point is this, our dream is still alive. And in a way, it is still in our hands. And now there is a very real chance of victory. Now the real work begins. If this country is to have another rebirth it is up to us. Ron Paul will either be forgotten, a name swept away in history like Autumn leaves blowing across a lawn, or his statues will stand in public parks, as the father of a reborn nation and the father of our most popular president.
So, get a good job. Make some money. Lots of money. And get ready for the next installment of the Liberty story. In a few years, or a few months, the real work begins again. Run Rand Run.
Post Ron Paul: Where do we go now?
Don’t assume that Ron Paul is going to ride off into the sunset, with his cowgirl, Carol, at his side. He made it clear during his light hearted exchange with Jay Leno that he isn’t finished with us. And I, for one, am not finished with him either.
If Romney wins, Senator Rand Paul’s trajectory would be on hold and in 2016, Ron Paul, the father, would be the best primary challenger to a Republican establishment president, owned by the FED and the few.
Who else would have the guts to do it? And the media, who under normal circumstance would pan him, might let him have more than 89 seconds, just to have some fun – and some ratings – in an otherwise boring re-nomination process. Another run would help educate even more and fatten the Liberty Movement for Senator Rand Paul and the future in 2020.
Besides, this would be the best way to stand up to the corruption and dishonesty of the Republican establishment who runs the party like National Socialists. To let the abuse of Tampa go unanswered would be a mistake. “Remember the Maine.”
Is Ron Paul too old? Not for me. Konrad Andenauer , Germanys greatest leader of the last two centuries was in power at age 87. Michelangelo began painting the Sistine Chapel at age 71, he was still at it when he died at age 89. The Biblical account of Moses has him beginning his long journey, leading the Israelis from slavery, at age 80. Let Ron Paul lead us out of slavery at age 80.
Here’s a toast to Ron Paul, 2016.
But what do we do now? And more urgent, how should we vote in the 2012 presidential election?
The good news is that as befits the Liberty Movement, I don’t have to make that decision. Each one of us will do that as we want. But here are some of the arguments I am hearing.
1. Vote to re-elect Barack Obama?
The reasoning goes that an Obama win would help bring the Republican establishment to its knees and make them more willing to make room for a Liberty Movement candidate next time. Isn’t this the best response to their brutal exclusion of the duly elected Ron Paul delegates to the RNC in Tampa? Haven’t they asked for it? Hasn’t Bill Kristol and John Sununu made it clear that they do not think they need us and in any case, they do not want us, under any circumstances?
The problem is that Obama’s reelection would likely bring the country to its knees as well. Even if a manipulated currency created a temporary bubble the long term damage could be catastrophic. America could go so deep into the sleep of socialism that it might never awaken. Voting for Obama to create an opening for a Liberty candidate in 2016 might make logical sense to some but it would take the courage of that Utah mountain climber who cut off his hand to get himself free. Some of us just don’t have the stomach to do it.
2. Vote for Mitt Romney?
If he wins it will delay Rand Paul’s possible rise and may actually end much of what we have accomplished. Many of our issues, audit the fed, for example, may be co-opted by Romney, who understands the polling data but is owned by the bankers. Of course, he won’t have a “real” audit but it will appear to address the issue and take the steam out of our cause. Likewise, the wars may eventually wind down out of financial necessity, as Dr. Paul has said will happen. For me, voting for Romney is like kissing your sister. There is just no future in it.
3. Write in Ron Paul’s name?
This was what I was going to do but who would ever know the final number? It would give me some personal satisfaction, and amuse a few poll watchers, but otherwise mean nothing. No one would get the message. There is even a chance that my ballot could be disqualified and all the other viable Liberty candidates I voted for would lose my support as well.
4. Vote for Virgil Goode?
He is the former congressman from Virginia who is running as a candidate of the so called Constitutional Party. Some say he will get 5% of the vote in his home state. The Republican Elitist Fascist operation, that worked against us in Tampa, is now hot on his trail, trying to get him off the ballot. But even if he survives and even if he realizes his most ambitious plans, he will only be on the ballot in 25 states. What’s the use?
5. Vote for Gary Johnson?
Why not? No one will know. A good showing will put the GOP on notice that they had better be respectful to the Liberty Movement and make room for it. They made it clear they didn’t want us. Shouldn’t there be consequences?
If the showing is small, well, they were lucky it was Gary Johnson, not Ron Paul. No harm done.
If Obama wins? Rand Paul can make a run in 2016. If Romney wins? Ron Paul can challenge him and if the GOP cheats again, and makes it clear they will not allow a free process, he could take on the mantle of the Libertarian Party one more time. And this time, boosted by bigger numbers and a wider knowledge of the issues, have an impact.
Consider this, if Ron Paul were the Libertarian candidate right now, some polls have him winning 17% of the vote, which would land him in the national debates and change the course of the country.
Bottom line? I haven’t decided yet but I would like to hear your opinions, without profanity please. Or join the discussion at: http://www.facebook.com/DougWeadOfficial
Doug Wead’s photo visit to the Republican National Convention
My first RNC was at the Cow Palace in San Francisco in 1964. I was eighteen years old. Barry Goldwater was the nominee. I talked my way into the lobby of the Mark Hopkins Hotel and drank Gold water out of a punch bowl. It was exciting. I shared the experience with Barry Goldwater, Jr. and his son backstage at the Ron Paul Rally in Tampa.
But nothing will ever compare to this 2012 convention. Let’s call it the “Brownshirt Convention.” The nominee, Mitt Romney, was apparently concerned lest there be a public demonstration. The downtown was like a concentration camp with barriers and fences keeping people in and others out. Armed guards outnumbered the people on the deserted streets.