Senator Rand Paul sat at the table next to mine at an event a year
ago. Since we had not met, I went over and introduced myself. My wife
had her picture taken with him.
While we hadn't met in person, I had spoken with Rand Paul on the
phone once, in 2010 when I rolled up my shirt sleeves to help raise
money for his Senate race in Kentucky.
I have always agreed to help the Ron Paul campaign in any way I can.
Some of the activists tell me that I am the first person to promote Ron
Paul's presidency on national television. That was back in 2007, in the
opening days of the first campaign. I remember wondering as I was
driving to the studio for the interview that day how I was going to be
able to work in a mention of Ron Paul, since it was completely off the
topic of the show. But in the last minute I was able to work in my plug.
And I have sung his praises on national TV many times since.
I championed Ron Paul for years on my on radio show, dating back even
before the campaigns. I have lost count of the number of times over the
years I have hosted, co-hosted, or been a guest on Ron Paul Moneybombs,
those powerful online campaign fundraising telethons.
Although few, there have been others I have helped in the same way.
Peter Schiff, when he ran for U.S. Senate in Connecticut, is one.
Twice I was asked to host a Rand Paul Moneybomb, one time on his father's birthday. Out of respect for Ron Paul, I agreed. Once.
But by the time the next opportunity came around a few weeks later, I
declined. Senate candidate Rand Paul was already making strange, new
bedfellows. A headline at Salon.com put it this way: "Rand
Paul cozies up to the neocons." In a piece called "Rand's secret
rendezvous," a writer for The American Conservative was just as
astonished at the news that Rand Paul was currying favor with
discredited champions of the Iraq war like Bill Kristol:
… I am curious as to why Rand would bother to meet such people. They currently hold no office in government. Kristol's Weekly Standard magazine was worth peanuts on the open media market and all of their
views and knowledge of foreign policy should have been utterly
discredited after the debacle in Iraq. Why would a man presumably on a
victory lap in his election feel the need to meet with people who have
no discernible power, have been made to look like fools and who tried to
keep him from getting nominated during the primary last spring?
But as Lew Rockwell said in a recent interview, Rand is not a copy of
his dad. He has his own views. So the second time I was asked to help, I
couldn't bring myself to pitch in.
It seems to a lot of Ron Paul supporters that Senator Paul has been
just a little too eager to see his father leave the Republican
presidential field, especially since Ron Paul's popularity was growing
exponentially. In May came the announcement that shocked the faithful:
The Ron Paul campaign was being suspended in the remaining primary
states. It was a wholly unnecessary announcement since the campaign, the
devoted workers, its social media activists, and even the fundraising
were all largely a bottom-up effort. At the grassroots level, the Ron
Paul Revolution was just getting started.
The news deflated the movement. Immediately there was speculation
that the ham-handed announcement was engineered by Rand Paul who didn't
want to be tainted by the expected defeat of his father by Mitt Romney
in the Kentucky Republican presidential primary just days away.
Whether or not that was so, it was followed by the unhappy
conjunction of events last week. On Wednesday, Ron Paul alerted his
followers that he didn't have enough delegates to secure the Republican
nomination. Since that was not news it shouldn't have merited an
announcement, but, once it was made, it was followed lickety-split by
Rand Paul appearing Thursday on Sean Hannity's Fox News show, a venue
notoriously disrespectful of Ron Paul and his supporters. It was there
Rand Paul announced his endorsement of Mitt Romney.
What exactly was the hurry? Could we wait for hundreds of
hard-working and devoted Ron Paul delegates to have a vote at the
convention first? Could we wait for the body to get cold?
Apparently not. Bill Kristol has been bragging recently about purging
anti-war elements from the Republican Party. "I'd be happy if Ron Paul
left," he said. Now it's Mitt Romney's party and the bankrupting global
military empire that has done so much to shatter the American dream will
Rand Paul apologists argue earnestly that his endorsement of Mitt
Romney is a clever strategic move. It is politically expedient, they
say. Clever it may have been, but clever can't compete with wise. And
expediency can't compare with sound principles.
Ron Paul didn't achieve his following by doing what was politically
expedient. He didn't ignite the enthusiasm of people across the land
because he was ambitious. He didn't inspire a movement by seeking
strategies to advance his career.
Ron Paul set new armies of freedom champions marching, not because he is clever, but because he is wise.
He did it by standing on principal.
Ron Paul leaves office in January. His supporters are not confused by
cleverness. Nor are we distracted by expediency. We know there is no
anti-war, sound money, liberty movement successor in Washington who can
take his place.
Publisher: Thank you for sharing this with us Charles. FreedomsPhoenix readers may wish to check out your "American Breaking Point
" website where this article was first published to read your member's Comments on this article.