Source: Independent Political Report
by Darrell L. Castle
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.</blockquote>
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.
Click here to read Independent Political Report comments on this article