Holy cow, the people on FB and the blogosphere in general are going absolutely nuts over Rand Paul killing all those Girl Scouts with a 5 iron. Ha ha not really, all he did was endorse Mitt Romney. But the reaction was about the same.
I like to think of myself as the little angel–OK perhaps the little Buddha–who sits on the right shoulder of the libertarian movement. No matter what the situation, I want to whisper, “Are you sure?” before we lynch someone.
For example, I don’t think Roderick Long’s post, entitled “It Usually Ends With Rand Paul,” makes any sense:
So Rand Paul has endorsed Romney. Despite the fact that Ron Paul is still running. And despite the fact that Gary Johnson is running. I guess he’s an ambitious man.
I submit that the middle two sentences make no sense whatsoever. Before Rand’s announcement, Ron Paul himself said he wasn’t going to be the nominee (and by extension, the next President of the United States), and nobody thinks Gary Johnson has a shot at the White House.
So what does someone being in the race have to do with his eligibility for nomination? E.g. let’s say Rand Paul had endorsed Gary Johnson. Why couldn’t Roderick say, “What?!! Are you nuts?!! Johnson isn’t going to win. If you’re going to throw your endorsement away on principle, then at least pick someone really pure and versed in libertarian theory, not a former governor who apparently doesn’t live at the library.”
To be clear, my point is this: I think Roderick’s post would have made a lot more sense if he just said, “Rand should have kept his mouth shut.” But to instead say he should have endorsed his dad–when everybody knows Rand would have preferred his dad won–or a guy who has no shot and isn’t even a purist protest candidate, makes little sense to me.
To reiterate yet again, I’m OK with people aiming the 2-minute hate at Rand Paul, I am just acting as defense counsel to make sure we are procedurally fair. This isn’t the Obama war room, for crying out loud.