Ron Paul Gets Sold Out By His Son After Rand Paul Endorses Mitt Romney

Jack Hunter claims Rand Paul “had” to endorse Romney and Mike Adams says Paul is lying in his endorsement in an attempt to insert himself into a position of power.  Dan McCarthy of the American Conservative explains this is simply retail politics that don’t mean anything. Meanwhile,economist Robert Murphy posted a few apologist pieces, including one from Lew Rockwell.

The Lew Rockwell interview was interesting. The interviewer (on RT, of course) asks some great questions, including: “Why cater to an establishment party that shut out what your morals are this whole time?” Rockwell’s response was, I’m not for catering, I’m for forgetting about it.

Well, I’m not in favor of “forgetting about it.”

I have no problems forgiving, but if Rand wants my cash, he better start changing his tune. Pretend Rand were a German politician during the rise of the Third Reich and had  endorsed Hitler because he wanted more power within the Nazi party, even though he didn’t agree with the majority of what the Nazis were doing. His endorsement of Romney is no different.

Rockwell points out in his interview that the establishment is for endless war, drones, and regulation of the internet. So if the establishment is for all of those horrible things, how could he possibly support Rand's decision? I don’t care if Rand can do some good within the party. I care about principle; Rand has just clearly demonstrated that he has none. In this case, Rand’s endorsement of Romney is inexcusable given the fact that his father is still technically running, and Gary Johnson is still in the mix.  

It is important not to get caught up in an improper attachment to a political figure. When people show approval towards politicians who engage in what they know to be bad behavior, they take on the role of an enabler. Many people make huge emotional and monetary investments in their favorite political figures; clearly, this makes it hard for them to denounce bad behavior. I think that is precisely what we are seeing here in the responses to Rand Paul's endorsement. 

How many Democrats still blindly support Obama after he failed to end the wars, stop the drug raids, end the cronyism, and halt the bailouts? How many Republicans support Romney, the very guy who implemented Obamacare in his own state and has flip-flopped so many times on so many issues that there isn’t a single issue on which he’s ever been consistent? Why should we support people who endorse these clowns with our money, votes, or time? 

I don’t blame Rockwell or the other commentators for being apologists, they are simply caught up in a psychological state that precludes them from making a rational assessment of the situation. Either that, or they subconsciously support Romney themselves. I refuse to throw my support behind the lesser of two evils. My principles are stronger than that.