From the very beginning (2010), when Rand Paul announced he was going to run for the U.S. Senate, many within the liberty movement thought that the Kentucky ophthalmologist turned politician would be just like his father. I wasn’t as convinced because he was running under the TEA Party label and was branding himself as a conservative Republican. Many said (and still claim to this day) that he was just trying to avoid what they considered the missteps of his father, by stealthily maneuvering himself within the Republican party as a libertarian without having to say he was a libertarian. In other words: “Rand Paul’s being dishonest about who he is and what he stands for because it’s the only way he can win.” This seems to be a recurring theme among Rand Paul supporters (now known as “Randroids”). They claim that Rand Paul isn’t telling the truth when he says things that are anti-liberty, but that it’s the only way he can work his magic within the Republican Party. Rand Paul made it clear from the outset that he was no libertarian. But don’t worry, he’s just being dishonest. The ends justify the means, according to Randroids. But only if it’s Rand Paul. If anyone else in the political world is dishonest, they feel immediately compelled to make a meal out of it.
One thing that has always perplexed me is the continuous excuses that Randroids make for their beloved candidate. But the “He’s only lying to get elected” excuse, really takes the cake. They tell you that his plan is to lie his way into the position of GOP Presidential Nominee by pretending to be in line with the Establishment Republicans on most issues. If indeed this was Rand’s grand plan, they have just let the cat out of the bag by broadcasting Rand’s secret all over social media. Lindsey Graham may never have sent an e-mail in his entire life, but his staffers have surely told him about the chatter they read on Facebook.
Rand Paul has flip-flopped (very clearly, I might add) on a number of key issues, with his supporters and even his own campaign staff refusing to admit that he has done so. Rand even got “testy” with Savannah Guthrie over at NBC when she brought the issue up in a live interview being watched by millions. You can read about his flip-flops here, here, here, and here. It’s one thing to change your position on one or two issues once you’ve received new information. But flip flopping on nearly every policy plank of his platform really underscores the fact that Rand stands wherever the people in the room with him want him to stand. As the old saying goes: “Any port in a storm.”
Some of the greatest minds within the liberty movement have also condemned Rand Paul for his anti-liberty stances. Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo, and Gary Johnson, are just a few who have pointed out the fallacy of being a libertarian and supporting Rand Paul. The graphic to the right illustrates this and more.
Rand also attempted to have his Rudy Giuliani moment (which instantly fell flat) at the first GOP Presidential Debate of 2015, when he went toe to belly with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Rand may have been right in his argument, but it did little to boost his poll numbers because he’s wrong on so many other things. His comments to Christie about “Giving President Obama a hug,” made the social media rounds for about an hour after the debate, and then disappeared into the night.
I never fell for the “He’s just lying to get elected” BS, because even if it were true, I wouldn’t be supporting a candidate who was blatantly dishonest. Regardless of the reasons behind it. It’s why I also wouldn’t vote for him if I lived in Kentucky, where he’s up for reelection as a Senator. A race that isn’t as clear now as it was a year ago.
The guy who truly could have been known as a “different kind of Republican” (whatever that is), won’t even be an also ran. Which makes that possible gig at FOX News as a “libertarian” commentator a no-go from the git-go.