With friends like this, the younger Paul needs no enemies

by Eric Dondero

I've known Justin Raimondo for over two decades. I was the Florida Chairman for his Libertarian Republican Organzing Committee for two years, before it went defunct, and I replaced it by founding the Republican Liberty Caucus. I also knew him from various Young Americans for Freedom, and national Republican Party events in the late 1980s, and 90s.

He's been a thorn in the side of Libertarians and Libertarian Republicans for decades. He's also been an extreme trouble-maker, (some suspect on someone's payroll?) whether it was his vicious attacks on Ron Paul in the late 1980s as a "John Birch Society fringe Rightwinger," his organizing Gays for Buchanan in the '90s, his joining in a coalition with Code Pink, or his strident anti-Bush rants and joining with the hard Left against the Iraq War in the early 2000s.

But now he may have completely stepped over the line.

Opines Raimondo at AntiWar.com yesterday:

Rand Paul’s Problem, and Ours: He's not half the man his father is

In the first few paragraphs he makes a half-ass attempt to refute Rachel Maddow's attack on Rand Paul. At the same time he calls the younger Paul's performance, "not very articulate."

Code Pinkos like Raimondo opposing Rand Paul no doubt helpful in Kentucky

He then goes on the attack himself against Rand Paul:

Maddow didn’t expose Rand Paul’s alleged “racism” – what she revealed is his inability to function, like his father, as a spokesman for libertarianism. After all, he isn’t his father – unfortunately, I would add. Wouldn’t it be great to have Ron in the Senate? He’s certainly more than earned it. One can only dream. Yet the advent of Paul, the son, is turning into my personal nightmare.

I have to say that I’ve held off commenting on the subject of Rand’s candidacy quite deliberately, because I wanted to give him the benefit of every doubt. I wasn’t too alarmed, at first, when he differed from his father on the subject of Guantanamo and the question of whether to give “enemy combatants” a trial before we lock them up forever – I didn’t and don’t agree, but plenty of anti-interventionists I respect, such as Pat Buchanan, would take Rand’s side in that debate...

Rand came out in favor of economic sanctions on Iran:

“I do see Iran as a threat to the stability of the Middle East… Recently, President Obama took nuclear weapons off the table in certain circumstances, and I think that’s a mistake. I think it’s reckless to take them out of the equation.”

Raimondo's response:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but that sounds to me like he’s in favor – given the right circumstances – of nuking Iran. This is something that not even the wildest-eyed neocon has seriously proposed. That an alleged “libertarian” could mouth those words is appalling...

Raimondo continues by taking personal shots at him:

It’s true that Rand got his start in the libertarian movement, as a supporter of and spokesman for his father, but good sense may not be hereditary...

He concludes:

Why doesn’t he spend a few moments backtracking from his morally reprehensible refusal to take nuking Iran “out of the equation”? Now that’s something he really ought to get down on his hands and knees and beg forgiveness for – and maybe (just maybe!) libertarians will think about supporting him. Until that apology – or “clarification” – is forthcoming, I wouldn’t give Rand Paul the time of day.

Something tells me that the good voters of Kentucky will be more appreciative of Rand Paul's pro-national security views, rather than the stidently Anti-American/antiWar views of Raimondo, Maddow, and groups like Code Pink. The fact that Raimondo & Co. are withholding support for Rand, is no doubt a huge net-positive.

The very worst thing that could happen for Rand Paul would be if Raimondo & Crew suddenly showed up campaigning for him in Paducah.