by Darrell L. Castle
Constitution Party
Last Friday’s endorsement of Mitt Romney by Senator Rand Paul conjured up images of how George Washington must have felt when betrayed by his trusted general, Benedict Arnold. That’s way too harsh, you may say, because Washington was betrayed when his countrymen were fighting for their lives and the life of their nation against the greatest empire on earth at that time. Benedict Arnold traded his honor for position and power with the empire and as a result his name has been forever synonymous with treason and deceit. I can’t help but conclude that Rand’s endorsement of Romney falls into the same category of deceit. Those of us in the liberty movement are struggling to survive against an even more powerful empire than that which existed in Washington’s day. Rand has not only set the liberty movement back but perhaps has also destroyed his father’s legacy.
Why he would do it is the question that begs for an answer. Did he do it because he has been corrupted by the Washington power elite with promises of position and power? If so, then he is a deceiver and by definition a corrupt one. In addition his deception will not work because he has underestimated the rage his endorsement has provoked among his followers. Did he do it because he has always been a loyal subject of the Republican leadership and principles really don’t matter to him? If that is true the result is even worse because that makes him a lying hypocrite for pretending to be something that he is not. Did he do it because he wants to be a contender in 2016 or 2020 and needs to exhibit loyalty to the leadership of the Republican Party?
Whatever the reason that Rand Paul endorsed Romney, to many of us in the liberty movement, he just eliminated himself from contention as a Presidential candidate now or in the future. He not only endorsed Romney, he said he would be honored to be Romney’s running mate. He admitted, therefore, that he would be honored to serve with a man who stands opposed to virtually everything his father has represented for his 35 years in Washington. Reaction to the news has been so bad, and has come in such large numbers, that one cannot help but wonder if he did not miscalculate.
The fact remains that it is Ron the liberty movement has supported for 35 years, not his son. Is it possible that Ron did not approve his son’s decision in advance? It hardly seems likely but if so a brief statement to that effect would seem to be in order. The statement would need to be something similar to this—
Rand is my son and I love him but I do not support his decision to endorse
Mitt Romney. I completely disavow his decision and I have separated myself
from it. Should I fail to gain the Republican nomination, which now seems
likely, I will be giving my endorsement to the Constitution Party’s candidates,
Virgil Goode, and Jim Clymer.
That statement would go a long way toward preserving Ron’s legacy as the champion of liberty that he has always appeared to be.
What candidate will you support now that Ron Paul has admitted defeat in his bid for the Republican nomination and his son, Rand, has proven himself to be just another Republican loyalist? I urge you to consider the Constitution Party and its candidates—Virgil Goode for President and Jim Clymer for Vice President. When Ron Paul was eliminated from the Republican nomination in 2008, he endorsed the Constitution Party’s candidates.
The Constitution Party always has and always will lift high the torch of liberty. Go to http://www.constitutionparty.com and http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com for information about the Constitution Party and its candidates.
“Why would he do either?”
There does seem to be a call among Ron Paul supporters for Ron to comment on the issue. That’s fine IMO. He can distance himself from it without creating family discord.
“Paul can express his disagreement and/or distance himself from the endorsement without dropping the rhetorical hammer on his son.”
Why would he do either?
I hastily posted this and then had to go out of town for work and was away from a computer. Here are my thoughts:
I think it was a mistake for Rand to endorse Romney and I like Darrell Castle, but this strikes me as hyperbolic and overwrought. As conservatives, we should believe that family comes before politics. Asking Ron Paul to publicly and harshly repudiate his son is asking too much. Paul can express his disagreement and/or distance himself from the endorsement without dropping the rhetorical hammer on his son.
@35 See @ 33
@3o, LOL that’s what people say when they make stuff up. Can anyone else confirm the e-mail?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cb9HK53nShw&feature=youtu.be
Could be a very good year for the LP 🙂
Even Alex Jones who got behind Baldwin is backing Johnson. The CP is in trouble with RP supporters.
I got an email about it but did not save it.
@28- Where did you pick that up? Do you have a link?
Carol Paul has said that Rand did not consult with Ron on Romney endorsement …
Ron Paul’s endorsement of Baldwin swayed me to vote for him here in Maryland. I was really torn. In my mind, Barr was… well, a bombastic ass, while Baldwin was uncomfortably conservative. I was close to leaving the Presidential slot blank, but after Paul’s endorsement, I was hoping that voting Baldwin would send a message. I’m not sure that message was sent, but I don’t regret voting for him. As uncomfortably conservative as he is, he is at least a good man. This time around, Gary Johnson no doubt has my vote; even if Paul endorses Goode.
The only reason I voted for Barr was that Baldwin was not on the ballot in my state.
Austin @ 24 is right on both counts.
I voted for Bob Barr because I was county chair of the LP at the time, and California had a ballot proposal to ban non-discriminatory marriage,
I sent out a postcard to our registered voters urging a vote for Bob Barr and a vote to save marriage rights by voting no on Prop. 8
I had been tempted to write in Ron Paul, which 17,000 in California did. But I didn’t because of his stands on abortion and immigration, and because of the newsletters.
Regarding Paul’s endorsement of Baldwin, some here have made some great points, but I also think a couple other things.
1. There are many supporters of Ron Paul who are socially liberal, and the conservative rhetoric of both Barr and Baldwin was too much for them.
2. Many libertarians voted for Obama because there were many things he campaigned on that we agreed with. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but many thought that Obama would be a decent second choice in the general after supporting Paul in the primary. That won’t happen again.
“Trent Hill // Jun 13, 2012 at 4:28 pm
I’d say the RP endorsement gave Baldwin in the neighborhood of 75,000 additional votes. Maybe as low as 50k.”
It would have resulted in a lot more votes if Chuck Baldwin had been on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC, instead of just 37 states. It was especially bad that he missed the ballot in several high population states as I mentioned above.
I’d say the RP endorsement gave Baldwin in the neighborhood of 75,000 additional votes. Maybe as low as 50k.
Yeah Baldwin had BA issues, RP endorsement came late, and He ran as a protest vote to Keyes and won. He did the best ever for the party with all that against him. The RP factor definitely helped.
“Ron Paul’s support for Baldwin provided negligible results last time around – there was no magic dusting that made the CP bigger and badder.”
“Negligible” is subjective, but it definitely provided a boost. The CP got it’s strongest presidential result, by quite a bit. Previously the best result was 1996. The CP improved on that total by 15,000 votes in 2008, despite not having ballot access in states like New York and California–those two alone accounting for over 45k votes for Phillips in 1996.
“Peter Gemma // Jun 13, 2012 at 11:17 am
Ron Paul’s support for Baldwin provided negligible results last time around – there was no magic dusting that made the CP bigger and badder. ”
This is an uniformed statement. The real reason that it didn’t have as big of a impact is it could have had is because the Constitution Party and the Chuck Baldwin campaign were not anywhere close to being as prepared for the election as they should have been. The Constitution Party was only on the ballot in 37 states, and they had their ballot access in the most populous state of California stolen from them by a pro-Alan Keyes faction who put Keyes on the ballot instead of Baldwin. They were also not on the ballot in several other high population states like Pennsylvania, New York, Indiana, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and Arizona. Also, Chuck Baldwin got in the race late and lacked campaign organization.
The Ron Paul endorsement did have a positive impact for Chuck Baldwin, but it didn’t have nearly the positive effect that it could have had if their all of their “ducks had been in a row” so to speak.
If he had run earlier he very well may have.
@15. I certainly do. I really wish Mr. Castle had won the CP nom.
@15 I think a lot of people feel the same way.
BUT… having said that I must also say that any future political contributions I make will be to the Johnson campaign or to the LP for ballot access. Unlike 2008 wherein I preferred Baldwin to Barr this year I believe Johnson is the better choice over Goode.
Peter Gemma- excellent post! Very insightful. I disagree with what Senator Paul did (especially BEFORE the Republican convention) but I think you have captured the thought very well. Thank you.
Ron Paul’s support for Baldwin provided negligible results last time around – there was no magic dusting that made the CP bigger and badder.
While his endorsement would have more impact this year, there is a new factor at work: his son can/will be a credible candidate for President. Rand is not as libertarian as his father, and the movement Ron Paul built will be his to earn. With his dad’s continued help, Rand is a serious contender. Yes, there re those who will walk because of the Romney endorsement but so be it – there are zillions of there who follow Ron Paul’ leadership. Many will be swayed by rand’ voting record and his political action between now and then. (By the way, Rand’s endorsement wasn’t a rah-rah go-git-’em statement.)
It’s a Paul family decision to infiltrate the GOP infrastructure – Paulistas are in place from county organizations to the Republican National Committee. Why would Rand’s dad put him in the firing line of constant news media questions in 2016: “Well, if you do not get the nomination are you going to endorse a third party candidate just like your dad?”
I think Ron Paul will a neutral role this year. He might say, “I’m trying to work for the issues I see as priorities, and if I can influence Romney, his campaign, and his administration then I may just vote for him too.”
Ron is going to endorse a long-shot candidate whom voted for the Iraq war and the Patriot Act? Yeah, right.
Like @4 said, Baldwin only got the support because Barr insulted the good Doctor. And Baldwin was way more libertarian than Goode.
My money is that he will either endorse nobody or might possibly endorse Romney for the sake of his political machine. I could care less either way, but it might anger enough Paul followers to vote third party this time around.
Gary Johnson > Virgil Goode
Libertarians and those leaning libertarian have been vacillating for forty years between working from within the GOP and building a Libertarian Party. This division of time and money has not led to success either way. Those within the GOP will be the red-headed step child as long as the LP is too weak to be the balance of power. The only way for the GOP to sit up and take notice
(that is, reform itself) is for all the Ron Paul supporters to join with the Gary Johnson campaign and send Romney down to defeat by GJ’s margin of votes in swing states. Remember how Rep. B-1 Bob Dornan cried about Libertarians costing the GOP five or six House members in 1994(?) Let’s have oceans of salty GOP tears in 2012, even if it means another four years of Obama fascism.
What candidate will you support now
I may support more than one candidate, but I will ultimately be voting for a slate of electors. The real question is who they would ultimately support in December.
“I bet money that Ron Paul won’t endorse anyone this election cycle.”
I agree.
I bet money that Ron Paul won’t endorse anyone this election cycle.
…That is, IF Ron Paul acutally makes this statement HIMSELF, and not Mr. Castle!
Ron Paul knows Goode and very likely will not forget Virgil’s past support. Besides, it is easy to endorse someone who shares some of your own views, so I am not holding my breath…. I think the man will do as he said. Perhaps Paul’s supporters will do likewise, though that will be worth keeping an eye on…. Still, this would be a huge endorsement for Goode’s campaign.
“Should I fail to gain the Republican nomination, which now seems likely, I will be giving my endorsement to the Constitution Party’s candidates, Virgil Goode, and Jim Clymer.”
Don’t hold your breath. The only reason Baldwin got the endorsement in ’08 was because Paul was stood up by Barr.
As Ron Paul himself said in 2010 prior to deciding to run in 2012:
“I can’t imagine endorsing anyone else.” (on Gary Johnson)
Castle: “Rand has not only set the liberty movement back but perhaps has also destroyed his father’s legacy.”
This seems like gross hyperbole to me. Rand Paul is Ron Paul’s son, but his own decisions don’t bear on his father’s legacy as a member of Congress.
What candidate will you support now that Ron Paul has admitted defeat in his bid for the Republican nomination and his son, Rand, has proven himself to be just another Republican loyalist?
Gary Johnson. Thanks for asking!
“Rand is my son and I love him but I do not support his decision to endorse
Mitt Romney. I completely disavow his decision and I have separated myself
from it. Should I fail to gain the Republican nomination, which now seems
likely, I will be giving my endorsement to the Constitution Party’s candidates,
Virgil Goode, and Jim Clymer.”
Looks like the Constitution Party favors the legalization of pot after all.