The Daily Bell Newswire – It's Free!

News & Analysis

Rand Paul Disappoints?

Saturday, May 22, 2010 – by Staff Report

Dr. Rand Paul

"His [Rand Paul's] success so far has the GOP establishment fighting back. In his ads, Grayson is attempting to paint Paul as a kook whose beliefs are outside the mainstream. Which may explain why on several issues, Paul is edging toward the center: Pure libertarians, he says, believe the market should dictate policy on nearly everything from the environment to health care. Paul has lately said he would not leave abortion to the states, he doesn't believe in legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, he'd support federal drug laws, he'd vote to support Kentucky's coal interests and he'd be tough on national security. "They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian," Paul says between Lasik surgeries at his medical office, where his campaign is headquartered, with a few desks crammed between treatment rooms. "Frankly, I'd rather be coming from the right than from the left like Grayson, who not too long ago was a Democrat and Bill Clinton supporter." (Grayson voted for Clinton in 1992 before switching parties and entering politics in the mid-1990s.) – Time Magazine

Dominant Social Theme: Rand Paul is becoming more sensible and less like his kooky father.

Free-Market Analysis: Yesterday, when all 1,000 of us – the writers, editors and coffee go-fers of the Daily Bell staff – gathered around a conference table the length of a football field in our Pentagon-sized editorial office to decide on today's Bell article, it didn't take us long. "Does Rand Paul disappoint?" we asked in unison. Well, almost in unison. The few that disagreed were taken to a nearby Swiss alp and dropped from the summit. That's what libertarian ideologues do, isn't it? As usual, we have job openings.

In any event, having decided on our topic, we went looking for more information about Rand Paul's various political positions, only to discover that estimable feedbacker Lila Rajiva had beat us to it. After quoting the Time article (excerpted above) she writes the following on her mindbodypolitic.blog:

Oops. Which is why, gentle readers, it is ever so much better to trade your account, tend your own garden, and forget about politics and politicians, even when they seem to agree with some of your own positions. Politics and the law aren't going to save us. Which is why I haven't paid too much attention to the financial reform bull..er..bill that just got through the Senate on Thursday night. (- Rajiva)

Now perhaps we have a smidgen of disagreement with the above statement – though we noticed, as well, that she has softened her perspective slightly with an update via an interview with Rand Paul's father, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex). (Anyway, maybe Ms. Rajiva will grant us our point.) From our perspective, politics in the United States can be seen, within limits, as something of an educational venture, no matter what Voltaire wrote about tending to one's own garden in Candide.

Ron Paul has proven to be an educator for free-market thinking, in our opinion. We hope Rand Paul will prove the same. Rand Paul has not yet traveled around the world that we know of like Candide, but he has taken on some hacks of late (in many senses of the word) and obviously resents it and has fought back. Thus while the Time article is from March, its observations may yet apply (are they accurate?) to the current dialogue in which Rand Paul is engaged.

Like his father – the congressman and former presidential candidate Ron Paul – Rand Paul is being attacked by the mainstream media because of what he knows and the economics he understands. Again, we can't see it's going to make any difference in the long run, as we've written recently. The elite's dominant social theme as regards Western democracy is increasingly in tatters. We doubt it can be resuscitated anytime soon. Rand Paul is evidence of this trend; so is the Tea Party, and political enlightenment is growing in the United States and throughout the world.

What exactly is the Western political promotion as presented by the power elite? It is one that separates the authoritarian right from the fascistic left and puts them on the opposite side of the spectrum when indeed they are two sides of the same coin. The OTHER side is the free-market one where you will find someone like Rand Paul who actually believes a great deal in less statist interference, warmongering, regulation, etc. Here's what we wrote the other day:

We try to analyze the elite's dominant social themes here at the Bell; but it has occurred to us that when it comes to the victory of Rand Paul in Kentucky, we would tend to believe the elite doesn't know how to spin it. Rand Paul is an anti-foreign war, anti big-government kind of guy, and this is the establishment's nightmare. The rhetoric and substance of the views of Rand and Ron Paul are increasingly popular in America. They represent a profound challenge to the powers-that-be – or so we would have to believe. Their popularity is driven by the Internet, and their message is resonant with a culture that is still instinctively small-r republican ...

The elite has played Western democracies and especially US citizens for suckers for nearly a century – sorry to sound harsh but it's true in our opinion. In America, the strategy has been apparently to build up the number of voters who favor big government – and then, alternatively, present candidates who verbalize the rhetoric of small government but turn out to be big government spenders when it comes to the military. The result has been that the American voter never gets smaller government.

Click here to read full story: US War Crowd Losing Steam

The recent attacks on Rand Paul (casting him as some kind racist or corporate shill) only serve to illustrate the intellectual bankruptcy of those making them; they will not retard, even a little bit, the continued unraveling of the elite's democratic (right versus left) meme. Inexorably, American voters are being drawn to various types of libertarian platforms, conservative or not. We are on record as saying this questioning attitude will eventually spread to the military industrial complex. This is the ultimate fear of elite controllers of course – aside from losing the current paper-money/fiat monopoly to a renewed de facto gold and silver standard.

In fact, Rand Paul is being attacked not for what he is saying currently but for what we believe are deeper beliefs that may resemble those of his father. In a recent interview with Alex Jones, he reportedly said the following: "I'd say we'd be very, very similar (Dr. Rand and Ron Paul). We might present the message sometimes differently. I think in some ways the message has to be broadened and made more appealing to the entire Republican electorate because you have to win a primary."

So the belief systems may be roughly compatible. Yet we have noticed (as indicated in the Time article) that Rand Paul's rhetoric seems occasionally at variance with his father's, and perhaps in a non-libertarian manner – possibly as a result of the criticism he is receiving, or might receive. The result is that he is being attacked anyway (predictably) by the elite's media-based foot-soldiers; but also may be in danger of discouraging the vital and growing libertarian base that his father has cultivated at great personal and political expense.

Yes, we understand how difficult it is, and that there is a race to be won – and even Ron Paul is no libertarian purist, especially during the heat of a campaign. But if Rand Paul is voluntarily choosing a kind of politically correct speech (especially where it comes to foreign affairs), he is possibly throwing away an important opportunity to use his painfully gained platform to educate American voters about free-market thinking. Of course, on achieving final victory perhaps he would become more open, assuming – reasonably? – that he is being guarded now. But we would also note that his father, in our humble opinion, has had more influence on the nation's politics via truth-telling than from winning the presidency via the usual institutional pandering.

Conclusion: We have the deepest admiration for his father, and Rand Paul certainly has our best wishes as he continues his difficult journey. But it seems to us that Ron Paul has gained a vast and growing following throughout the United States because within certain limits he has used the bully pulpit of both his congressional office and a presidential electoral campaign to educate America about its historical Jeffersonian free-market tradition. We think Ron Paul must ask himself (from time to time) the following question, as many of us do: "For what is a man profited, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?"




Latest Daily Bell Articles

Feedback

Effective April 25, 2012, the Daily Bell will discontinue allowing feedback comments. We have left in place the large body of responses posted in the past, as we appreciate the valuable contributions made by some of our readers.
Showing 1 - 20 of 94 - Newest on top - Reorder Feedback
  Posted by Jeff In US on 05/29/10 11:06 AM

When is everyone here going to realize that the leaders who are in place now are ordained to be there for the cause that will bring about the intentions of the will of God. Be it good or bad through the ill intent of those who willing choose to ignore truth. One needs to remember that those who will not receive a love for the truth will be sent a strong delusion that they might believe a lie...... those words are as true today as the day they were spoken. The rest of the words are that they might be damned. Dr. Paul's rise is because he is exposing the deception with truth. If the speed of light can be calculated..... how fast is dark to get out of the way?

  Posted by Angus0s0s on 05/29/10 07:19 AM

If you look at the hippie movement of the 60s - we are entering a phase like that - but without chaos.

In fact - this time - it appears the MAINSTREAM is in more CHAOS - than the ALTERNATIVE side - hippies are more organized and smarter than before. They know business - they've worked a long time.

The baby boomers may die before we see a change - but if they can sacrifice themselves for the youth - then we can get back to our peaceful, productive, co-operative, local, community orientated nature.

How should the baby boomer sacrifice itself. By their votes. Vote for LaRouche And the Pauls.

Reply from The Daily Bell

We are not so sure about LaRouche whose presidential icon is FDR.

  Posted by Weeble on 05/26/10 03:46 PM

I know it is little off topic for Wednesday 5/26/10, but I figured I would throw this onto the correct thread about Randianism. If no-one reads past issues, then no harm, no foul.

This is from Click to view link and Dyler Turden:

Click to view link

And here is an excerpt:

Sometimes the apple does fall very, very far from the tree. A must read essay by Howard Buffett, father of the "legendary" investor who initially was so very much against derivatives then promptly changed his tune, discusses fiat money and gold, and concludes that "human freedom rests on gold redeemable money."

In this stunningly simple, straightforward, and flawless analysis, Buffett's father stresses the relation between money and freedom and contends that without a redeemable currency, an individual's freedom and one's access to property is dependent on goodwill of politicians.

Buffett also says that paper money systems generally collapse and result in economic chaos. He goes on to observe that a gold standard would restrict government spending and give people greater power over the public purse.

Lastly, back in 1948, Howard Buffett, said this the "present" is the right time to restore the gold standard. Alas, 60 years later, his advice has still been largely ignored, and as a result we have a global economy that stands on the precipice of global default with runaway budget deficits across the entire developed world.

Key quotes: "Is there a connection between Human Freedom and A Gold Redeemable Money? At first glance it would seem that money belongs to the world of economics and human freedom to the political sphere. But when you recall that one of the first moves by Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler was to outlaw individual ownership of gold, you begin to sense that there may be some connection between money, redeemable in gold, and the rare prize known as human liberty.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thanks. Interesting.

  Posted by Fred Shoemaker on 05/24/10 03:38 PM

I do direct my ire toward the power elite every chance I get. That is why I direct my attention to libertarian sites like Lew Rockwell and Mises to become better informed.

You mystify me when you suggest you get your authority concerning the dominant social theme from the market place. I spend hours on the net and only see stories concerning Ron being a kook from major media or affiliate pundit news sites. If you consider these sites the market place I guess you have a winner. I do not agree. The market place especially the free market considers Ron a hero nor a kook. Your logic alludes me.

Reply from The Daily Bell

If the market rejects the Bell and people cease to visit it, then it will eventually cease to exist. Thus, we derive our authority (to exist) from the free-market, as do many other alternative news sites.

  Posted by Fred Shoemaker on 05/24/10 01:32 PM

You said that I misunderstood your format in reference to Ron Paul being kookie.

What I would like to know is who sets your Dominant Social Theme. I am sure individuals that support Ron Paul all over the world do not believe he is kookie.

The only ones that make that statement are those in the major media which in the USA is controlled by the government in all ways. Like Rand Paul their attack dogs are all over.

It seems as though you are part of the major media process in insuring Ron is painted in the light of a kook which should cause your readers to think twice about what information you publish.

AMERICA'S SECRET ESTABLISHMENT AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ORDER of SKULL & BONES by Anton Sutton points out how that organization from YALE controls thru its former and current members the world and most wars by backing the evil ones. Could you be part of their control which loves to discredit those that try and expose it?

I still do not understand where you get the authority to present the dominant social theme in anything as though it were fact.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Perhaps our format is confusing, but we are not presenting dominant social themes as facts. We are stating what we think the power elite wishes for you to believe (and promotes through fear-based memes) and then we are attempting to explain those memes/themes in detail and where appropriate debunk them.

Where do we get the authority to do this, you ask. From the marketplace! If our perspectives were not seen as valuable, our articles would not regularly be picked up by others in the alternative news media. Certainly, we would not be gaining thousands of new viewers each month, as we are, who are often more perceptive than the Bell itself about these power-elite themes and memes.

Anyway, we think we are providing a unique, free-market approach to news and commentary, even within the sophisticated context of the alternative press. We are proud of our approach, which has garnered us significant attention in an extraordinarily competitive news universe. Many major news organizations cannot build the kind of audience we have achieved in basically a year even when they spend millions.

We would humbly suggest you direct your apparent ire toward the power elite itself, its functionaries and mechanisms rather than entities such as the Bell that seek to expose the often-malevolent, devious conversations of the modern world.

  Posted by Chuck on 05/24/10 09:07 AM

@ Weeble

Excellent conversation my friend. Always a pleasure. I love debating with you guys.

  Posted by Weeble on 05/23/10 10:50 PM

Gold being finite or infinite is not really the point, though.

According to Mises (from what I remember), as more product chases the same amount of gold, prices would generally drop all the time. A bad crop would increase the price of that crop, or a sudden influx of new gold would make some prices go up, but productivity gains, causing more competing products to appear on shelves would make prices go down as a rule. (The same amount of butter to spread over many more slices of bread).

Debt-World-Inc., insipid inflation and out-and-out theft of savings like the 2007 crash, cover up productivity gains, so we all do not get to see the fruits of our labour.

All I want for Christmas is my two front teeth back. I'll pay cash for them. Cash meaning PMs and common stock (there FB, you have it).

  Posted by Weeble on 05/23/10 10:37 PM

"look into the into the antecedents of Wiki and Wikipedia" - DB reply

I agree. My kids' teachers do not accept Wiki as a source. I use Wiki for a quickie, as you may have noticed. Some articles seem as bent as a crooked man, but this article passed the test for me, as it showed no bias.

  Posted by Weeble on 05/23/10 10:26 PM

I think we are all preaching to the converted with respect to Gold, silver and common stock. I use the term "gold" loosely. Silver, copper, or any tangible asset would do for a fair trade.

When the economies of the world hyperventilate (as it will very soon), who will you sell your hard earned split logs to: a person with an ounce of gold as trade, or a person with a certificate with a serial number on it? I think we all know the answer to that, except Milo Minderbender.

If some bright spark came up with a piece of paper that was backed by gold, then would you trust him? I wouldn't. Look where it got us this time.

Once we all got on our feet and began to trust others a little more, then common stock would be an option to expand the money supply. But I Hope that Faith does not lead to Charity.

I think this communication problem is merely about where we are positioned on the 12 inch ruler.

  Posted by Weeble on 05/23/10 10:04 PM

Au, that hurts!

Scarce means finite. Now that's a synaptual leap! I was in a rush to the garden at the time, and did not have the time to look up the stats on gold. I added that "scarce means finite" line at the end with little thought. I guess I have eventually shown my true colours and got a nice little red/green shiner as a result!

Now I have a little time on my hands, rather than dirty hands from planting bushes and trees all day to hide my home from the Men in Black.

A total of 5.175 billion ounces of gold have been mined (wiki) since Fatbeard landed in Somalia and hid his gold, back in the dark ages. (Apparently, one of his descendants runs a very profitable gold ETF). The world GDP is USD $50 trillion (pre-debt implosion). Therefore, if it was used for circulation, then at 100 percent efficiency, it would be worth USD $9661 per ounce. Since a lot of gold is parked at the back of your stereo, and on your fingers, the remaining gold if used for circulation would be a higher value than that.

Since more gold is mined every year, the total amount obviously increases, and the labour involved in finding it, mining it and refining it is well worth their trouble, pay them in gold, I say. Gold cannot be created out of thin air, like fiat money, or common stocks. The latter two, are built on faith (sorry FB, don't take offense " we are not done yet). Gold is scarce and holds its value over time. It seems finite, but it is just scarce. Not a lot of it.

My source for this apology is from Wiki:

Click to view link

Here is an excerpt:

Clip-------------------------------

Gold has been widely used throughout the world as a vehicle for monetary exchange, either by issuance and recognition of gold coins or other bare metal quantities, or through gold-convertible paper instruments by establishing gold standards in which the total value of issued money is represented in a store of gold reserves.

However, the amount of gold in the world is finite and production has not grown in relation to the world's economies. Today, gold mining output is declining.

With the sharp growth of economies in the 20th century, and increasing foreign exchange, the world's gold reserves and their trading market have become a small fraction of all markets and fixed exchange rates of currencies to gold became unsustainable.

At the beginning of World War I the warring nations moved to a fractional gold standard, inflating their currencies to finance the war effort. After World War II gold was replaced by a system of convertible currency following the Bretton Woods system. Gold standards and the direct convertibility of currencies to gold have been abandoned by world governments, being replaced by fiat currency in their stead. Switzerland was the last country to tie its currency to gold; it backed 40% of its value until the Swiss joined the International Monetary Fund in 1999.

Pure gold is too soft for day-to-day monetary use and is typically hardened by alloying with copper, silver or other base metals. The gold content of alloys is measured in carats (k). Pure gold is designated as 24k. Gold coins intended for circulation from 1526 into the 1930s were typically a standard 22k alloy called crown gold, for hardness.

Clip-------------------------------

Oh my gosh, did they really say that? Gold is finite? What does that mean? Hmm, I guess it means a synaptual leap, falling into a molten metal pot. Gold is finite and scarce!

I don't do drugs, so it couldn't have been a philosopher's stone.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Gold has been mined for thousands of years. Here at the Bell, we cannot conceive that gold is "finite." Scarce, yes, but new technologies for mining are being developed all the time. Please look into the into the antecedents of Wiki and Wikipedia. There is considerable question as to their impartiality on certain issues - especially monetary issues and certain other dominant social themes that we cover on a regular basis.

  Posted by Chuck on 05/23/10 06:27 PM

My apologies for the grammatical errors above.

  Posted by Chuck on 05/23/10 06:25 PM

Also, even if we found a huge gold deposit and the supply went up. The human nature element of the free market which is so often ignored would stabilize things, instead of being the gravity which deflates the bubbles of today's current system.

  Posted by Chuck on 05/23/10 06:10 PM

@Weeble

There is enough for a gold standard, plenty for a gold and silver standard. I agree with the Bell, Click to view link defines scarce as :insufficient to satisfy the need or demand; not abundant. Even if it is finite, not only have we mined enough for a standard presently, but the quantity is of little relevance when it comes down to it. One can measure a foot with twelve one-inch rulers, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a foot. The price of gold has remained steady and will remain steady. Money supply may shrink, but in the long run gold it will raise purchasing power by driving down and stabilizing prices, and money supply is irrelevant because purchasing power is dictated by the free market.

  Posted by F. Beard on 05/23/10 04:15 PM

"The very first thing is truth.
Only then comes liberty.
If we do not expose the truth.
There can be no real liberty."
-Lila Rajiva

"But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy.

And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. " James 3: 17-18

  Posted by F. Beard on 05/23/10 03:27 PM

"Is it possible that some of the perceived value of major (Anglo-American) corporate players arises as a result of elite-manipulated quasi-monopolies? The financial industry would come to mind in this regard ..." The Daily Bell

Yes, of course. But I maintain and I think the Bell agrees, that without government privilege, however disguised, monopolies are unstable and would be kept in check by a free market.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Very good! In fact, many of the world's largest corporations seem to have gained significant government privileges over time that do tend to a create a kind of virtual monopoly (in certain narrow areas anyway). Our term for this - shared by others, we believe - is mercantilism. We think that the creation of these mercantilist entities can distort the operation and valuations of even the largest stock markets.

  Posted by F. Beard on 05/23/10 03:10 PM

"I am a firm believer in gold, as it is very difficult to pull it out of the ground, therefore scarce. Stocks are much easier to create, as most people have access to a scanner and a laser printer. Stocks are therefore not scarce. " Weeble

Shirley, you jest (strange name for a male). Sure, anyone can form a corporation and issue stock but the value of the stock would depend on the tangible or perceived value of the underlying capital.

Reply from The Daily Bell

"The value of the stock would depend on the tangible or perceived value of the underlying capital."

Is it possible that some of the perceived value of major (Anglo-American) corporate players arises as a result of elite-manipulated quasi-monopolies? The financial industry would come to mind in this regard ...

  Posted by F. Beard on 05/23/10 12:38 PM

"But people sold stocks for money, which was then used to purchase assets to realize their goal for the business. This is why I am confused. If I sold a stock and got other stock as money, then we are all just flipping stocks around. When does money enter the picture? " Weeble

Money for debt is unstable; the supply of it expands as loans are extended tending to drive up prices including stock prices and the supply of it shrinks as loans are repaid tending to drive DOWN stock prices, hence stock market price volatility. Not to mention Interest which is also deflationary because it is not created; only the Principle of loans is created.

Without the need for money as an unstable pricing mechanism and medium of exchange, the Stock Market as a whole should only trend steadily upward due to human progress. It would no longer be at the mercy of an unstable money supply.

Lesson? Looting wealth is not stable overall while sharing it IS.

Would the use of gold as money help? Yes, but gold still has the inherent problems of borrowing and lending money made even worse by the charging of Interest.

  Posted by Lila Rajiva on 05/23/10 12:26 PM

DB -

Thanks very much for the citation. I much appreciate it.

I confess I don't know what to think about Rand Paul.

With regard to Rand Paul's statements about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Jacob Hornberger has written a very good defense of the libertarian position on that. The Nazis must march in Skokie and my racist friends and neighbors must be allowed to bar their homes and businesses to me, if the first amendment is to be honored. The CRA is simply an exception to that purist libertarian position, an exception that at the time was correct.

However, my point is this.

If Rand then also says that the Federal government must ban abortion, hasn't he just proven he's no libertarian purist? And if he's no libertarian purist, then his defense of the right to discriminate in private business becomes more suspect, in my eyes.

But even if we set aside all the social issues, which, arguably are overshadowed by our economic situation, what are we to make of his support for the nine-years-and-running Afghanistan war, especially when we take into account his refusal to decriminalize the drug trade?

Does this mean the "War on Drugs," continues, along with the "War on Terror"?

At a time when fiscal responsibility is paramount, this is unsupportable. How can we cut entitlements (which are no such thing, as people have already paid into them - they are obligations of the government), we must before anything else cut back the funding for the increasingly bloated, corrupt, and out- of-control war machine. That is the minimally libertarian position.

If Rand cannot begin to dismantle the war machine - and perhaps, politically, he cannot, as a libertarian - then we must wait for whoever can.

The issue in 2010 is not slavery. It is debt and war. The two are intimately related, as all Austrians know.

The slaves of today are the citizens of distant countries who are starved and bombed far out of the range of our vision by the neoliberal empire.

To show to the citizenry that this is not "defense" but MURDER is the most important task at hand and it is not a legislative task. It is an intellectual one. We have to deconstruct the "War on Terror" as a propaganda effort. We have to name the names without fear or shame and shine the light unflinchingly on the lies and deceit and theft.

We must simply ignore the entire establishment, reach out to who ever will write truthfully on this, be they in government or out, in the US or anywhere else, be they in business or in entertainment or in the blogosphere, be they on right or left, whether we approve their other positions or not.

The very first thing is truth.
Only then comes liberty.
If we do not expose the truth.
There can be no real liberty.

Lila Rajiva

Reply from The Daily Bell

You raised questions regarding Rand Paul with great efficiency in your blog. Your restatement here at greater length reinforces those observations.

  Posted by Weeble on 05/23/10 11:59 AM

@ Chuck

I am a believer in gold. Gold is scarce. I will look up the amount of gold mined ever the dark days when Fatbeard buried his in Somalia, compared to the world GDP and get back to you. I think it shows the value as being USD $50 trillion or something, which is $5000 per ounce at the moment.

Scarce means finite.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Good post, but ...

"Scarce means finite." Are you sure? Doesn't it mean "not a lot."

  Posted by Mpresley on 05/23/10 11:39 AM

Rand Paul appears as someone rather naive about the nature of the practice of American politics. Why anyone would even bring up or respond to questions about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in any context, especially HIS context, shows a complete lack of understanding of how the discussion of racial issues/policy is political suicide if one's ideas do not fit the established liberal template.

I would argue that universal suffrage has completely destroyed the nation (along with a handful of other liberal ideas), however I am not running for office, so I am able to think and speak more freely.

Mr. Paul, however, must learn to navigate politics more intuitively or he is doomed. Americans on the whole are probably not ready for a frank discussion of race (in spite of what Eric "let a hundred flowers bloom" Holder has suggested).

Reply from The Daily Bell

We think Rand Paul SHOULD address the issue. The trouble was he began to address it and then seemingly stopped. He has a bully pulpit and is a smart, committed and courageous person like his Dad. We hope he makes good use of the high profile he has developed - win or lose. And our position remains that even if he loses, he can still build a national platform for himself as others have including his father and, say, Peter Schiff. Here's a thought: Is it possible that a free-market message (assuming Rand is fully in the free-market camp - and that seems at least somewhat questionable right now) and building a national persona is more important than winning a Senate seat?

1 2 3 4 5 Next