Not because he is necessarily a better man than them. But because I know that he would actually do the job he was elected to do.

He already has the record to prove it.

I vote for candidates who I believe, or hope, or pray, will vote for fiscal restraint, small government and the Constitution.

Most Republicans do not do this. Hardly any Republicans have ever done this.

Our $16 trillion debt did not begin with Obama. The last time Republicans were in charge, they doubled the debt and the size of government.

Most Republicans currently in Congress aided and abetted this. TARP, stimulus, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Plan D—any expensive, big government item you can name—if a Republican President was behind it, most Republicans supported it.

Sanford is not one of them. He never has been one of them. Ron Paul earned the nickname “Dr. No” for often being the sole “no” on so many votes. When Sanford was in the House, the congressional scorecard often featured two “no” votes—Paul and Sanford.

Even those who disagree with Ron Paul know that he is politically principled. The same can be said—and right now should be said, as a stark reminder—about Sanford.

I was born and raised in Charleston, and during my decade of commentary on 96 Wave and WTMA talk radio, I would rant and rave about my ideal conservative Republican. Someone who actually voted the way he talked on the campaign trail. Who would stand by the Constitution even if it meant standing against his party.

On Tuesday, South Carolina District 1 will have a chance to vote for exactly the kind of Republican I always said we needed. We need this type of leader today more desperately than ever.

This is not a commentary on Sanford’s personal failings. This is about policy. This is about how a representative will vote. This is about the future and what’s at stake as America stares down a $16 trillion debt with no end in sight.

By all accounts, President Obama is a good family man. I do not care. His policies are badly damaging this country.

By all accounts, Elizabeth Colbert-Busch seems like a nice lady. I’m even a fan of her brother’s television show.

Still, I do not care. How will she vote? Like Obama and the rest of her party. We know it. She knows it.

If Sanford is better than 90% of Republicans, than he is certainly better than 99.9% of Democrats.

Most elections come down to personality, attacks and peripheral things that, once the campaign is over, will have nothing to do with how that leader votes. Colbert-Busch ended the SC 1 debate saying that the “sky is not falling,” mocking Sanford’s concern over a $16 trillion debt.

No surprise there. She belongs to a party that has always believed we can have as much government as we want—to hell with the cost. Most Republicans have behaved in the exact same manner.

Sanford has never belonged to either group.

On Tuesday, SC 1 voters can choose someone who will simply be another part of problem in Washington, another cog in the big government machine…

Or someone who has proven—time and again, in Congress and as Governor—that he will stand on principle no matter the odds.

As an American, I fear for our economic future. As a Charlestonian, I know we have the opportunity to send a proven leader to Washington with the guts to challenge the status quo.

In fact, I think Mark really enjoys challenging the status quo. It’s something I’ve always liked and admired about him.

Most Americans in most congressional districts throughout the country have to settle for whatever unprincipled hack they’re presented with. Not SC 1. We’re lucky.

In most elections, voters are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. If “evil” is judged by how the winner of this election will actually vote in Congress, we are presented with a clear choice—a Democrat who will vote as horribly as most Democrats, or a Republican who will uniquely vote as a true conservative Republican should, unlike most in his party.

There are not two evils in this race. There is only one.

And then there is Mark Sanford.

Folks, the same guy who filibustered for 13 hours to say the government does not have the right to drone American citizens on American soil did not just say the opposite. He might have misspoke. I do all the time. Please give the one person who stood up for this the benefit of the doubt, and not a media eager to attack him any chance they get.

Some replied by saying that they don’t give politicians the benefit of the doubt.

What about the fact that Judge Andrew Napolitano said that Sen. Paul “unequivocally” did not change his position on drone strikes?

Nope. Judge is wrong, said some.

What about the fact that Rep. Justin Amash also defended Sen. Paul?

Nope. Not buying it.

Would you even give Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt, I asked?

Nope. No politician. Ever.

The general rule of never giving a politicians the benefit of the doubt is a wise one. 99.9% of them don’t deserve it. But are there .01% that do deserve it?

There are three current politicians and one retired, that I always give the benefit of the doubt. Rep. Justin Amash, Rep. Thomas Massie, Sen. Rand Paul and former Congressman Ron Paul. Between their voting record and simply knowing where they stand, their principles, their heart, where they’re coming from – I generally know that even when I might occasionally be confused by something they’ve done, I should hear their side of the story.

This is not to say I always agree, or have to agree with everything they do. It is to say that when there is something questionable, I wait to hear their reason for doing it.

I give them the benefit of the doubt.

Some libertarians might find this detestable. Fine. For those who see libertarianism as a personal philosophy that has nothing to do with politics at all, this commentary is not really for you. As always, I wish you well.

But for the millions who supported Ron Paul, whose apathy was cured, whose life was changed, and who now have a passion for changing our politics and the direction of this country, I ask this:

Can we even have a serious movement if we never give our leaders the benefit of the doubt?

George W. Bush was a horrible president. But most Republicans always gave him the benefit of the doubt. They shouldn’t have, but they did.

Barack Obama is a horrible president. But most Democrats always give him the benefit of the doubt. They shouldn’t, but they do.

In 2014, 2016 or beyond, there will be plenty of Bush-style establishment Republicans running for office. They will all be awful in their records and their platform, but many Republicans won’t care. They will support them.

If a libertarian Republican runs, with a 99% great record – will libertarians discard them over 1%? Will they constantly fight about that 1%? Or will they give them the benefit of the doubt?

If they don’t, the establishment Republican unquestionably wins.

More importantly, if libertarians cannot support liberty candidates who aren’t 100%, then no libertarian candidate ever wins.

If a libertarian Republican is lucky enough to make it into a general election, will libertarians support them against media attacks, similar to this week? Or will they give the media the benefit of the doubt, as many did this week? Obviously, there are limits, but in a general sense, if Hillary or Biden supporters go to the wall for their candidate – and they will – will libertarian Republicans do the same for their candidate?

And if libertarians won’t, does this not put liberty Republicans at a permanent disadvantage? Does this not permanently stunt our movement?

Establishment Republicans and Democrats always have a core base of support that they must expand beyond to win elections. Will libertarian candidates even have that core base of support? Will we be too busy bickering with each other to effectively confront the forces that conspire against us?

The media will always attack us. Our leaders. Our ideas. Libertarians in general. When they weren’t attacking Rand this week they were busy attacking Ron. This will continue.

Do we join their attack? Or do we give Ron and Rand Paul the benefit of the doubt?

Geraldo Rivera asked Ron Paul about his son this week. Dr. Paul replied:

We do have some differences and our approaches will be different, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it’s an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% [the same on issues].”

People want to drive wedges through that…

At this point, Dr. Paul often seems annoyed by the constant comparisons of him and his son, something he alludes to later in the Geraldo interview, probably because he believes the two of them are “99%” the same on the issues.

Dr. Paul doesn’t constantly quibble over any minor disagreements or misunderstandings – often used as a “wedge” by the MSM – because he generally gives his son the benefit of the doubt.

Will our movement be able to do this? Not that we should ever give liberty leaders free license to do or say bad things – but should we be anxious to pile on at every turn? To attack our leaders as harshly as the neocons and liberals? To take their bait? To become a part of their preferred narrative?

Can we give our leaders the benefit of the doubt? And if we can’t – can we continue to have a successful and formidable movement?

Rand Paul’s brand doesn’t line up with all of what our party stands for—on national security, social values, the economy and the role of government in society. His message won’t ultimately lead us to be a more successful party.”

Oh really? Let’s examine.

On National Security:

Santorum remains a die-hard Bush-Cheney loyalist. War is good. Civil liberties are bad. If there is a way for the Executive branch to assume more power or circumvent the Constitution, Santorum is for it.

Paul would like to see our wars declared by Congress which he believes will lead to less of them. He believes civil liberties are good, the Constitution is good and government power is bad.

Virtually every bit of polling shows that Americans are war-weary, the Iraq War remains very unpopular as does our 12 years in Afghanistan. Sen. Paul’s pro-civil liberties filibuster received broad bipartisan support and energized conservative Republicans like no other event in recent memory.

On national security, Paul’s message would unquestionably be more successful than Santorum’s.

On Social Values:

When Santorum was pro-choice in the 1990′s, Sen. Paul was pro-life, if Santorum wanted to quibble about this point.

On the life issue in general, polling shows that more Americans describe themselves as ‘pro-life’ now than they have in some time.

On issues like gay marriage, Santorum wants the status quo to hold. Paul, while believing in traditional marriage, would like to see the matter decided at the state level, or the government becoming less involved at all levels.

Public opinion trends toward more tolerance on this issue, and so it trends toward Paul.

On the federal war on drugs, Santorum wants the status quo to hold. Sen. Paul would like to see non-violent drug offenders receive treatment as opposed to incarceration.

Public opinion trends toward more tolerance on this issue as well, and so between Rick and Rand, Paul would be more successful on these issues.

On “The Economy and Role of Government in Society:”

Seriously?

Santorum supported every big government scheme George W. Bush ever promoted. He supported doubling the Department of Education through No Child Left Behind. He supported the largest entitlement expansion since LBJ with Medicare Plan D. When Bush doubled the national debt, Santorum was a “team player.”

I’m trying to think of one, actually limited government bill, proposal, idea or tease Santorum has ever supported. I can’t.

Paul is for cutting as much government as possible as soon as possible. Paul wants to get government out of the private sector and our wallets, like right now, if we can.

Paul believes the “role of government in society” is whatever minimal role the Constitution allows.

Santorum believes the “role of government in society” is whatever George W. Bush thought was a good idea.

If you’re a conservative, there is only one choice here: Paul. If you’re looking for a “successful” Republican Party, there is only one choice here: Paul.

It would be easy to dismiss Santorum’s economic and governmental ideas as “Democrat-lite” except for the fact that Bill Clinton was more fiscally conservative than Bush.

Any way you cut it, on the economy and government, as a conservative or in terms of success, Paul wins.

Conclusion:

By every possible measure, and certainly by Santorum’s stated measurements–national security, social values, economy and government–Paul’s “brand” unquestionably represents the more potentially successful Republican Party.

Some on both the left and right perceive libertarianism as inherently hostile to social conservatism. Some libertarians even think this. This is not only a misperception, but flat out wrong—libertarianism offers social conservatives a better hope for success in our current political environment than the nationalist approach often favored by some social conservative leaders.

Part of the beauty of libertarianism is that you can be socially liberal or socially conservative and subscribe to the label. For the millions of social conservatives who constitute a significant base of the Republicans Party, embracing libertarianism is not an all-or-nothing question of accepting or rejecting deep convictions about life, traditional marriage, or drug regulation. It simply means rethinking the approach to these issues.

The distance between mere rhetoric and tangible success for social conservatives essentially comes down to this question: Does the federal government always have to become involved? Or should certain decisions be made at the state and local level, as the framers of the Constitution intended?

The protection of innocent life is the number one concern of millions of Americans in both parties. Most pro-lifers believe that Roe v. Wade was constitutionally unsound, and indeed, some pro-choice advocates even admit that the legal reasoning was flawed. Given the gravity of what its stake, it is understandable that many would demand federal protection of the unborn.

It is also true that the political prospects of this happening anytime soon are nil. But if murder and manslaughter laws are decided at the state and local level, why shouldn’t that approach work for those who believe abortion is the taking of an innocent human life? The more libertarian position is the constitutional one—that any powers not delegated to the federal government as outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution are delegated to the states.

Many seemed to think so.

The Daily Beast “Rand Paul is So Hot Right Now:”

If CPAC were a music festival, Jeb Bush or Paul Ryan might be the headliner, butRand Paul would be the obscure indie band-turned-newly-hip main attraction. The senator from Kentucky’s now-infamous filibuster last week seems to have done for Paul what “coming out” did for Frank Ocean. Leaders of many of the young Republican groups considered a staple at the conservative conference said they observed an increase in young attendees, many of them undoubtedly here to stand with Rand.

TIME “At CPAC the Future Looks Libertarian:”

Give Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) points for timing: the 2013 Conservative Political Action Committee is shaping up to be a libertarian victory lap… The libertarian domination of CPAC follows years of growing support at the annual conference starting from the final years of the George W. Bush administration, forming a schism in the Republican Party the GOP has yet to repair. And after the defeat of Mitt Romney, who won the nomination on the support of establishment conservatives, the insurgent and fiercely independent groups have claimed this CPAC as their time to shine.

The Daily Beast “Rand Paul Rock Star, Libertarians Run the Show at CPAC:”

Indeed, the libertarian crowd has been increasingly vocal at Obama-era CPACs—Ron Paul has routinely won the annual straw poll—but this year, the Rand Paul Brigades look something like an occupying force. Everywhere one turns, there are “Stand With Rand” signs, stickers, and T-shirts (a volunteer told me he had handed out a thousand shirts in just over two hours).

The Verge “Rising ‘Facebook Generation’ Shouts Over GOP Establishment:” 

There’s a new crowd in town, and when they’re not shouting over Rand Paul, they’re standing up for him. And as they fill the halls of the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, they will help debate the GOP’s ideological future after its second consecutive defeat in search of the White House… for every Marco Rubio sticker on the floor, there seemed to be ten for Rand Paul. Signage and apparel for Paul dominated the conference much in the same way that passion for Rand’s father Ron Paul has risen in other party gatherings in recent years. Paul supporters were told to leave their “Stand with Rand” signs at the door, but they snuck them in anyway.

National Review:

Rand Paul won the straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday, a victory that cements his status as a tea-party favorite. Paul, who spoke at CPAC earlier this week, drew the support of many college-age activists and libertarians. Throughout the conference’s hallways, the support for Paul was strong, and his backers handed out “Stand with Rand” posters. Conservative leaders say Paul’s victory is a sign of his popularity within Republican ranks. “I’m glad someone who says bold things is rising,” says Arthur Brooks, the president of the American Enterprise Institute. “At a time when many conservatives are reflecting on the future, his views are connecting.”

WND “Rand Takes Over CPAC:”

Signs urging “Stand with Rand” were sprinkled throughout the conference. As Paul appeared on the stage to speak, audience members across the entire ballroom rose to their feet with “Stand With Rand” supporters. Paul exuded passion throughout his speech.

This is but a small sampling of reactions.

I think the inroads libertarians have made at CPAC in recent years can be summarized in one photo. I took this picture of the official backdrop on the main stage. Right below the faces of conservative icons William F. Buckley and Phyllis Schlafly, you might see a familiar logo.

Apparently, the organizers of CPAC think that the Ron Paul rEVOLutionaries who raised hell against the establishment the last few years are now a significant part of the larger conservative movement.

Judging by CPAC 2013, I’d say they’re right.

Let’s start with the libertarians. Brian Doherty, Senior Editor at Reason told Business Insider:

“This was a very big deal. In 36 hours, the Republican Party has completely changed. You literally saw the shift happen over the course of the day,” Doherty said. “It started with Rand Paul, and then it was just [Sens.] Mike Lee and Ted Cruz. And then you had people like Marco Rubio and Saxby Chambliss joining in. And by the end of it, [Republican Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell was on the floor saying he was going to block [CIA Director John] Brennan’s confirmation, and [RNC Chairman] Reince Priebus was tweeting that Senators should go join Rand Paul.”

“Who knows, maybe in two years, the filibuster won’t seem like a big deal,” he added. “But today, it feels like everything has changed. Today, it feels like the Republican Party is different.”

Doherty conceded that, for some conservatives, the embrace of Paul’s civil liberties argument may be chalked up to antagonism toward the Obama administration. But, he added, “if that’s what it takes to get Rush Limbaugh to say that he agrees with Rand Paul, that he’s open to these ideas, I’ll take it.”

Libertarian Justin Raimondo declared that “the libertarian moment had arrived–thanks to Rand Paul,” writing at Antiwar.com:

Part of what made this a signal event was that this was no pro forma type filibuster of the modern school, in which the Senator merely has to make known his or her intention to filibuster, but not actually get up there and speak. This was the real thing, and it was substantive. The Senate actually debated an important policy matter in the old style, with references to Shakespeare, and rhetorical flourishes the like of which we haven’t seen in many years. It was, in short, a paleo moment – and, politically, it was the Libertarian Moment, i.e. that moment in which a substantial body of Americans was rooting for a champion of liberty against the puffed-up conceit and criminal depredations of an overweening federal government.

What was significant about the presence of so many Republicans rushing to the Senate floor to get in on the action was that they felt compelled to do so. The wind is blowing in the direction of libertarianism – and not just on the economic front, but in the foreign policy and civil liberties realm as well.

What we are seeing is a seismic shift in the two parties’ approach to civil liberties, with the Democrats now freed to exude their inherent authoritarianism and the Republican grassroots in fear of a federal government headed up by a former “community organizer.”

The Daily Caller’s James Antle agreed with Raimondo that the GOP and Democrats had “changed places on executive power.” The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney said that “Paul made a conservative case for limiting war powers:”

Paul spent hours yesterday setting the case against extrajudicial drone killings in various conservative contexts. He made pro-life arguments. He made Edmund Burke-sounding arguments. He mostly made constitutional arguments. He drew the lines from conservative principles to his more libertarian foreign policy conclusions.

Neoconservative Jennifer Rubin wrote at The Washington Post that Sen. Paul was exposing the hypocrisy of both left and right:

In an actual filibuster (what the Republicans surely should have done in Hagel’s case), Rand Paul has focused attention on his substantive complaints about the administration (some of which I share and others I don’t), and moreover, he’s exposed the rank hypocrisy that has infected the left and the right, but most egregiously the mainstream media.

And so it’s come to this: Rand Paul talking all by himself on the Senate floor. On one level, it shows the power of a single senator to make a difference. On the other hand, it is a very sad statement on the intellectual collapse of both the right and the left — and most especially of the media, whose first impulse in this administration is to circle the wagons around the White House.

Seth McLaughlin at The Washington Times said that Sen. Paul was elevating the libertarian wing of the GOP and ticking off the neocons:

“You are starting to see a bit of a split between the libertarian-leaning lawmakers and essentially what you see as defense hawks,” said Ford O’Connell, a Republican strategist. “We are a war-weary nation. While the GOP is still seen as the national defense party, what you are seeing is a rising trend of libertarianism.

The back-and-forth highlighted a debate within the Republican Party that pits the old guard — whose fingerprints are all over the nation’s military efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya — against some of the Republican Party’s rising stars, several of whom rode into Congress as part of the backlash against growth of government and federal spending that started under President George W. Bush and continued on Mr. Obama’s watch.

“There was definitely a trend there among the newer members,” said Sen. Mike Lee, Utah Republican. “Those who have been elected to the Senate, or the election before that, we tend to have this viewpoint in common. The view that we need to look out for individual liberties of Americans we ought not just take it for granted that our government is going to behave responsibility and respect both the privacy and the lives of Americans.”

Rush Limbaugh said the neocons were becoming “paranoid” they were so scared of the “rise of Rand Paul:”

They, I think, are worried that Rand Paul might be skillful enough to move the Republican mainstream away from the McCain, Kristol, neoconservatism view of the world… The neocons are paranoid.  The neocons are paranoid because Rand Paul comes from his father’s gene pool.

Here’s the substance of this.  There is a fear among McCain, Lindsey Graham, and others who favor an interventionist foreign policy.  Think of the neocons. Think of going into Iraq and not just securing Iraq, but building a democracy. Nation building, if you will…

Rand Paul made a connection with the American people.  These other people do not.  He made a connection.  Therefore, he has the ability to influence and motivate people.  I’m telling you what their fears are.  They thought that Ron Paul was absolute nutcase, wacko. That’s why they’re calling Rand Paul a wacko, ’cause that’s what they thought of Ron Paul…  They are afraid that’s who Rand Paul is, and they’re afraid that what Rand Paul was doing with this filibuster was not just speaking out against the use of drones on American citizens on American soil.  They’re afraid that Rand Paul is actually setting the stage for building up public support to stop the interventionist usage of American military might and foreign policy all over the world.

Perhaps the neocons had a reason to fear Rand Paul–CNN’s Mo Elleithee said Sen. Paul was the “New Leader of the GOP:”

 At least for the time being, tea party darling Sen. Rand Paul is the effective leader of the Republican Party. And that’s a pretty big deal.

Paul is the only guy who appears able at this point to step into the GOP leadership void. There are two reasons why.

First, Paul has proven that he has the ability to punch his message through in a way that no one else in the Republican Party can. He’s clear. Whether or not you agree with him (and I rarely do), you know where he stands. He articulates his message more clearly than most people in Washington. He’s principled. He’s more ideologically consistent than many people in Washington (though admittedly, that’s not the highest of bars these days). He’s willing to take on leaders of both parties to make a point…

Paul’s also proven to be a master of both old and new media. Just look at this week. He had the entire traditional political press corps and mainstream media focused on him like a laser beam by utilizing one of the most old school tools available to a senator — the filibuster. Yet he made it feel new.

The second reason why Paul has become the party’s most effective messenger is that everyone across the entire ideological spectrum — from John McCain, Rubio and The Wall Street Journal to Majority Leader Harry Reid and Attorney General Eric Holder — is responding to him. Rand Paul has people listening and responding to him. He’s dictating the conversation. And when you look at the ineptitude of the rest of the Republican message machine, it’s pretty clear that he is one of the few people in his party that know how to do that.

He has the potential to shape the GOP field in a way that few others can at this point. In short, for now, it’s Rand Paul’s party. And it seems like so many other Republicans are simply trying to figure out how to live in it.

Mediate’s Noah Rothman said that “Rand Paul Shatters Democratic Monopoly On Romance And Captures The Hearts Of The Young Voter:”

Paul chipped away at the Democratic Party’s monopoly on romance yesterday. His actions broke through traditional firewalls that keep politics out of the homes of the nation’s marginally interested voters. He showed that the struggle for personal freedom is an idealistic pursuit. For a moment, the pervasive cynicism that has hardened voting patterns over the last two decades melted away. The political class will miss it, but the apolitical citizenry who could care less for what a consultant or a pundit says or thinks will not. The shift that Paul’s actions have ushered in will not remain imperceptible for long.

These examples are but a sampling of what many writers and pontificators are calling a revolutionary moment in our politics. I believe there is much truth in each of these observations.

I’ve always thought the primary mission of the liberty movement was to take our ideas mainstream. There is no question that Sen. Paul’s filibuster this week and the reaction to it was a significant step in doing so.

We should not fool ourselves. Sen. Paul’s glorious moment did  not change the world overnight. But it did show everyone that with principle and heart, the world really can be changed.

At root, politics is about building coalitions to create majorities large enough to implement policy. This week Sen. Rand demonstrated that he, and what he represents, has the ability to do this more than most in the Republican Party and arguably more than anyone in either party.

And he’s doing it with our ideas. In fact, liberty ideas are integral to his ability to pull any of this off.

Some neoconservatives will continue to call Sen. Paul ‘wacko.” Most conservatives will likely continue to call him a hero. So will most libertarians and more than a few progressives might give him his due.

From my perspective, it can simply be said that we are winning. Big time.

But perhaps Sen. Paul, who says his filibuster was “just the beginning,” should have the last word:

The outpouring of support for my filibuster has been overwhelming and heartening. My office has fielded thousands of calls. Millions have followed this debate on TV, Twitter and Facebook…

I believe the support I received this past week shows that Americans are looking for someone to really stand up and fight for them. And I’m prepared to do just that.

I’ve also met a good number of folks who’ve come to the liberty movement because of Glenn Beck. I know this sounds strange given some of the criticisms Beck has lodged at Ron Paul in the past, but we also forget the liberty things he has uniquely promoted, some of which I outlined yesterday.

I received this email from a reader today. I have received many similar emails concerning Beck, both this week and in the past:

“Mr. Hunter, I thoroughly enjoyed watching your segment on the Glenn Beck program this week. I have been a Beck fan for quite some time. I use to fall into the “George Bush-neocon” wing of the republican party. But Beck opened up my eyes; he taught me to analyze policy, not just bash a particular party. He always preaches his audience to “do your own homework.” Because of that, I found Ron Paul and thus began my transition to libertarianism.

So I definitely am one of the many that became libertarian because of Ron Paul, but I never would have gotten here without watching Glenn Beck. I subscribe to The Blaze, not just for Beck, but the entire platform of his programming. The show “Real News” is excellent- a good mix of conservatism with libertarianism- as Matt Kibbe and Matt Welch are frequent guest hosts. But I think your recent article is spot on. The liberty movement needs to embrace those who want to learn and also embrace those who we don’t agree 100% with. I wasn’t born a libertarian, in high school I mistakenly supported a lot of big government Republican programs and laws- so I guess I feel a connection to Beck seeing him go through the same transition.

Thank you for all the work you do for the liberty movement…”

First, a few thoughts on Beck in general.

I have been critical of Beck in the past, particularly when he’s said things disagreeable to the liberty movement. Some of them pretty bad. I’ve also been praiseworthy of Beck, when he’s promoted things of interest to the liberty movement, on a platform greater than most of us will ever achieve.

I remember Beck doing back-to-back days of his Fox News show promoting FA Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom.” I remember him promoting Tom Woods and his great book “Meltdown.” I remember him talking about the evils of the Federal Reserve. I remember him allowing Judge Andrew Napolitano to be his primary guest host on his uber-popular television program. I remember him educating his audience about the evils of “progressivism” bashing Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson for their big government visions, in both domestic and foreign policy. I remember him saying America needs to better mind its own business. I remember him being one of the earliest conservative talk hosts to call for troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.

During one of the breaks during Wednesday’s show, Beck actually reminded all of us that he’d been calling for an end to that war for five years. But that no one had really paid much attention to that.

He’s right.

The liberty movement is probably 99% full of people who had very different views than they do today–before Ron Paul decided to run for president in 2008. I’ve met people who come from more conventionally conservative, or even neoconservative perspectives. I’ve met ex-liberals. I’ve met people who didn’t really care about politics before. I’ve met people who’d said nasty things about Dr. Paul, even vicious things, but have since joined our movement.

But I’ve met very few who were libertarians or constitutionalists before Ron Paul.

Most who came to admire and embrace Ron Paul’s message did so from every position across the political spectrum imaginable. I bet many of them would today be embarrassed about some of things they used to believe, or said, or did. Luckily, they didn’t have a national television or radio program to document these things.

My impression of Beck from Wednesday, was that he is genuinely interested in libertarianism, but does have questions about certain aspects–as do probably most Americans. During the breaks, the banter between Beck, and us as guests, was him just generally reaching out to us, wanting to know if most libertarians would be accepting of him if he joined them in promoting these ideas, or if most libertarians were such purists that there could be no daylight between him and them.

I asked Beck if it was Judge Napolitano or his friend Penn Jillette that had pushed him in a more libertarian direction. He said that he felt had had already generally agreed with the Judge on most things for some time–that it was Jillette that had “opened his mind” more, toward libertarianism.

The cartoon caricature of libertarians is that we are a bunch of hedonists who just want prostitutes and drugs on every corner. Beck addressed this too, but also wanted to move beyond it. He has said repeatedly on the air that he believes it is the libertarian message that might turn this country around. This is certainly what most in the liberty movement believe. Does Glenn Beck agree with all of us on what the liberty message is? Probably not. Do most libertarians themselves completely agree on what the true liberty message is?

Most certainly not.

If someone was trying to pass off big government Bush-style conservatism as libertarianism, I’d be the first to go on the attack. But that’s not what’s going on with Beck. He attacks that era and the Republicans who screwed up the country. He says he was completely wrong in his former support of the Patriot Act (when does a national talk host ever say they are wrong about anything?). He says we can’t police the world. He’s even said that the answer to the same-sex marriage question is to remove the state from the equation altogether.

He says he absolutely loves Rand Paul.

Now, he can possibly say other, less liberty favorable things as well. But if the liberty movement does not have the desire or tolerance to encourage people who are coming our way, who want to come our way, who want to build bridges, we will forever be stunted as a movement. The entire Ron Paul movement was millions of people coming his way. Now that we have this movement, we should hope that millions more come our way. That’s the entire point.

And we should especially want those with a microphone as loud and as far reaching as Glenn Beck’s to come our way.

I think Beck is like many Americans. He’s open to these ideas. He’s learning, and wants to learn more. Perhaps my friend Luke Kenworthy’s Facebook status actually summed it up best:

Glenn Beck is the perfect reflection of the Tea Party. He defines it with, “I’m honestly trying to learn.” Watch him the past 6 years. He has the average American viewpoint, wakes up, discovers some truth and slowly find it in the virtues of preserving liberty. It’s a process in the right direction. Embrace it.

During our appearance, Beck told me, Jacob and Zak that he’d like The Blaze to be a platform to promote libertarian leaders and ideas. He noted, correctly, that none of the other major outlets are covering this stuff adequately, or framing the debate correctly. He’s 100% right.

If Glenn Beck wants to help us, we’d be fools not to let him. If the advancement of liberty is the goal, he could be an important ally. If purity is the litmus test, we will never have any allies–and each of us should resign from this movement effective immediately.

As long as stopping the war remained the movement’s primary focus, many Americans agreed or at least sympathized with the antiwar efforts. But when the movement began to latch onto other issues — feminism, socialism, class warfare — it muddied the waters and lost the support of Middle America.

The Tea Party began as a movement dedicated to a single purpose: to stop government spending. This populist grassroots movement began as a protest of President George W. Bush’s TARP bailout and gained momentum as President Barack Obama continued to escalate his predecessor’s big-government spending at a breakneck speed.

While the Tea Party had two different wings — one libertarian, the other socially conservative — the Tea Partiers found common cause in reducing the national debt. Some focused on reducing taxes, others the size of government itself. And there were also those who believed that the government should audit the Federal Reserve. But all of these issues were economic. There was a common theme. And as such, the Tea Party was widely popular.

According to 2009 Rasmussen poll, 51 percent of Americans viewed the massive Tax Day protests that happened that year favorably. And then as late as January 2011, the Los Angeles Times offered this factoid: “71 percent of Americans, even many who do not think highly of the ‘Tea Party,’ say it’s important that Republicans should take its positions into account.”

These concerns have only increased over the last two years, not-so-coincidentally in correlation with Washington’s ongoing out-of-control spending. Or as Gallup noted this January: “Americans’ concerns about the federal budget deficit and government dysfunction rose high enough in January to knock unemployment out of the top two slots on Gallup’s ‘most important problem’ list for the first time since 2009.”

Yet the Tea Party brand itself has suffered. A Rasmussen poll this month revealed that “only 30 percent of likely U.S. voters now have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party,” a drastic drop from Gallup’s 70 percent favorable rating just two years ago. Still, the concern over the “federal budget deficit and government dysfunction” — the Tea Party’s original focus — is higher than it has ever been.

Read the entire column at Charleston City Paper

I’ve had the opportunity to meet Stewart on three occasions, each time in the green room of his studio before a taping when one of the congressmen or senators I’ve worked for was his guest. Each time, Stewart came by to say hello to his guests beforehand, and he seemed generally interested in what they had to say. The Daily Show host seemed to have a genuine intellectual curiosity about those he might disagree with, and each time his questions reflected this. I was pleased that he seemed to be a man of integrity off-screen as much as on. And when it comes to drone strikes, Stewart proves that he isn’t about to let his liberal leanings alter his opinions on the issue as many other left-wing pundits have done.

Back when George W. Bush was in office, the Left was up in arms about Dubya’s decision to wage a secret drone war, most notably in Pakistan. At the time, liberals questioned both the wisdom and constitutionality of Bush’s drone policy. But now that Barack Obama is in office, the Democrats have changed their position. As CNN reported in September, “Covert drone strikes are one of President Obama’s key national security policies. He has already authorized 283 strikes in Pakistan, six times more than the number during President George W. Bush’s eight years in office.”

I ask you, where’s the liberal outrage? Where are the antiwar protesters calling Obama a “war criminal?” For the Left, apparently it isn’t a crime if their president does it. And after it was reported that the president had begun assassinating American citizens with drones — no judge, jury, or trial — I was sure the Left would react in unified horror. But again, they were silent.

The rare exception again was Stewart, who recently ripped Obama for his drone war and his reluctance to explain how his administration determines that an American national is an “imminent threat” and therefore worthy of being taken out by a drone strike.

The Daily Show host pointed out that Obama himself was a fierce critic of Bush’s foreign policy and lack of transparency. In particular, Stewart took issue with the vagueness of the term imminent threat. “So, wait, we can kill an American who is in Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-adjacent if they post an imminent danger, and by ‘imminent,’ we mean ‘eventual,’” Stewart said.

Read the entire column at Charleston City Paper