Jack Hunter offers a case for Rand's decision. Hunter says it's to build Rand's political capital, and it sets him up to be an effective politician for our cause whether Romney or Obama wins. In a later posting Jack reminds us even Rothbard gave a "endorsement" of Bush in 1992.
Lew Rockwell's take is a bit different. He is not surprised by son being different than father, and suggests now is the end of using political office as a means for advancing our cause. He admits Ron Paul is an exception to the rule, though, which of course opens the possibility that others can be an exception, too. In fact, Justin Amash, already in Congress, probably is another exception and will be the most principled pro-liberty Congressman after Ron leaves.
Adam Kokesh slams Rand Paul as a statist and a sellout. And Alex Jones has also doubts Rand's move, and challenges Ron Paul. Robert Scott Bell and Tom Mullen talk about it here.
I think they've all made some good points. I am disappointed with the way the endorsement was done, but accept that some kind of endorsement is politically inevitable for Rand Paul's strategy. I'm just hoping that the worst case scenario- that of Rand Paul becoming "Washingtonized" isn't happening. So far, I don't think so.
Finally, see Barry Lyndon's excellent article. I couldn't have said it better:
Rand Paul will become a sellout if --and only if -- he changes his senate voting habits away from libertarian values. I will be watching him very closely to see if this happens. If he starts “blowing in the wind,” I will certainly eat my words. But if I’m right, that Paul is simply being prudent in the pursuit of libertarian goals, then I hope Paulites everywhere will join me in giving full support to his future endeavors.
To be 90% right and in office is more use to the cause of liberty than to be 100% right and sit on the sidelines.