Just because Rand Paul is marginally better on a couple of issues than other conservatives is no reason to support him for president. There's no reason to support anyone for president.
Note to Media: Please Stop Calling Rand Paul a Libertarian | The William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism
> > > > > > >
Note to Media: Please Stop Calling Rand Paul a Libertari...Rand Paul at a town hall meeting in Louisville, Kentucky during his 2010 campaign for US Senate. (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore/Wikipedia) |
View on thegarrisoncenter.org | Preview by Yahoo |
“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” —George Santayana
My own personal position remains: If you are registered as a Republican (or a Decline to State), yes, support Rand Paul if you don't think he simply tells you what he thinks you want to hear as the article in Socrates' post indicates. If you are registered as a Libertarian, why the heck would you vote for a Republican? I don't quite buy the argument I have often heard from magnanimous souls who have registered Libertarian "to keep Libertarians" on the ballot, but vote Republican anyway. If more Libertarians voted Libertarian, there would be no need for this duality. I buy even less the argument that lots of Libertarians worked like crazy on Ron Paul's campaign (as I did), so why not repeat the same for Rand Paul. There is no comparison between these two.
As for Socrates saying "there's no reason to support anyone for president," I guess that would hold true either if one is an Anarchist (commendable, but even more idealistic than being a Libertarian), or if one wants to encourage political activists to focus on local elections (which makes some sense).
Just my two cents.