View Full Version : Rand Paul Endorsement of Mitt Romney Proves He's a True Libertarian Leader
RonPaulFanInGA
06-11-2012, 10:44 PM
http://www.policymic.com/articles/9549/rand-paul-endorsement-of-mitt-romney-proves-he-s-a-true-libertarian-leader-not-ron-paul-enemy
Sola_Fide
06-12-2012, 02:00 AM
If anything, this partially answers the question people are having with the timing of the endorsement.
How I read the title: Rand Paul Endorsement of Mitt Romney Proves Mitt Romney is a True Libertarian Leader
Which sounded like amusing sarcasm.
Didn't you know AnCaps are about destroying the machine, to hell with anyone trying to work in it...
Except Ron for helping AnCaps collect frn's from suckers in the movement. You don't attack God in front of his congregation.
He endorsed on the last conservative national show the Thursday night before his state's convention.
Oh, Rand.
I agree, it did show leadership, maybe not in the way some would have hoped. But he followed through on his promises to support the nominee. Showed he can handle the messy and difficult decisions, even if unpopular.
Also thought Ron's speech was particularly good in Texas--one of the very best of his career. It really should have buffered out any negativity from Rand's endorsement. Ron knows we are heading for some uncertain times. I watched the speech after watching Rand first, and it was very inspirational. Listen carefully about what Ron says in that speech.
whippoorwill
06-12-2012, 05:25 AM
Yea Rand endorced Mr. National I.D. Cards, Wants to double the size of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, Thinks that cutting Federal Government spending by one Trillion dollars takes money out of the economy, Thinks its ok to force people at the state level to buy government approved health insurance, Torture, suppressing assault weapon ownership, indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, assassinating U.S. citizens, Bombing Iran without a declaration of war from Congress, Economic Protectionism, Forcing producers of computers to add a porn filter, The Feds "independence", Bank bailouts, building walls at our Mexican Border and much more.
@whippoorwill, endorsements don't necessarily mean you support absolutely everything a candidate does or believes in. In reality endorsements are used more like political capital. Remember when Rand endorsed Massie. Rand probably really did support Massie wholly on principle in this case, but politically speaking, what Rand was doing was putting his political capital and weight behind him. This is why Massie's win was also a win for Rand and increased his political power. It proved his endorsement had weight behind it, enough to get others elected, and would have been a blow to Rand if Massie had lost. If you noticed after Massie's win, hit pieces in the media started rolling in on Rand too...and this is why.
And yea, it is kind of a sham that endorsements are used this way, but that's the reality of it. Politics is about power brokering. That's what Rand did-- he power brokered. Invested his own political capital in Romney, expecting a return in his own political stature...which he can then later use in investments of his own choosing. Like, I don't know, investing in the next Massie, or whoever.
fearthereaperx
06-12-2012, 05:49 AM
Yea Rand endorced Mr. National I.D. Cards, Wants to double the size of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, Thinks that cutting Federal Government spending by one Trillion dollars takes money out of the economy, Thinks its ok to force people at the state level to buy government approved health insurance, Torture, suppressing assault weapon ownership, indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, assassinating U.S. citizens, Bombing Iran without a declaration of war from Congress, Economic Protectionism, Forcing producers of computers to add a porn filter, The Feds "independence", Bank bailouts, building walls at our Mexican Border and much more.
He would've endorsed anyone who was the Republican nominee
UtahApocalypse
06-12-2012, 05:52 AM
He would've endorsed anyone who was the Republican nominee
Did I miss the convention?
Regardless of if Mitt Romney will become the nominee..... he is NOT the nominee at this point.
whippoorwill
06-12-2012, 06:04 AM
@whippoorwill, endorsements don't necessarily mean you support absolutely everything a candidate does or believes in. In reality endorsements are used more like political capital. Remember when Rand endorsed Massie. Rand probably really did support Massie wholly on principle in this case, but politically speaking, what Rand was doing was putting his political capital and weight behind him. This is why Massie's win was also a win for Rand and increased his political power. It proved his endorsement had weight behind it, enough to get others elected, and would have been a blow to Rand if Massie had lost. If you noticed after Massie's win, hit pieces in the media started rolling in on Rand too...and this is why.
And yea, it is kind of a sham that endorsements are used this way, but that's the reality of it. Politics is about power brokering. That's what Rand did-- he power brokered. Invested his own political capital in Romney, expecting a return in his own political stature...which he can then later use in investments of his own choosing. Like, I don't know, investing in the next Massie, or whoever.
Ron didn't endorce McCain! Why? Principal! And to this point "don't necessarily mean you support absolutely everything a candidate does or believes in".....There is absolutely nothing he believes in that I can agree with.
Remember that you are an individual and should vote your conscience, as you see fit, no matter who endorses who or for what reason. You are not tied down or chained to anybody's endorsement. The system can't 'deliver' your vote because they don't own you. Free your mind of the very idea.
Chrysamere
06-12-2012, 06:24 AM
Ron didn't endorce McCain! Why? Principal! And to this point "don't necessarily mean you support absolutely everything a candidate does or believes in".....There is absolutely nothing he believes in that I can agree with.
And this is exactly why Ron has been powerless in Washington for the last 30 years, it may have created this movement, but this movement has been just as powerless, we haven't made any change really.
We've only gained some leverage since we decided to retake the GOP. I despise the GOP more than any other organisation on this planet, and it certainly goes against my principles to even associate with them in the slightest, but it is a means to an end.
So long as Rand and Ron vote with principle, I don't give a damn what tactics they use to make a real change.
whippoorwill
06-12-2012, 06:35 AM
And this is exactly why Ron has been powerless in Washington for the last 30 years,..we haven't made any change really.
We got a Fed Audit! The first time in its history. We have taken over the Maine and Nevada State GOP...with more to come. Because of Principal.
Chrysamere
06-12-2012, 06:37 AM
We got a Fed Audit! The first time in its history. We have taken over the Maine and Nevada State GOP...with more to come. Becasue of Principal.
Fed audit? good job! We already knew we were fucked, we managed to find out a bit more about just how fucked we are!
And joining with the GOP is compromising, it has nothing to do with principle.
We got a Fed Audit! The first time in its history. We have taken over the Maine and Nevada State GOP...with more to come. Because of Principal.
Yes, but we are compromising even by being in the GOP in the first place. It's a corrupted system. But you've got to start somewhere. I think what people aren't realizing is that we are really only at beginning of this movement, as it is really only just started to gain steam, in terms of real mainstream success. Ron Paul is responsible for that--he has managed to lift the whole vehicle off the ground, and now people like Rand can go in and start really moving things. I think that's what Ron meant about the "egg needing to hatch or it will rot" in his Texas speech.
torchbearer
06-12-2012, 06:40 AM
Did I miss the convention?
Regardless of if Mitt Romney will become the nominee..... he is NOT the nominee at this point.
depends on Ron's willingness to be nominated at the rnc.
with no challengers left, a person can claim the prize.
William R
06-12-2012, 07:07 AM
bump
Occam's Banana
06-12-2012, 08:11 AM
Ron didn't endorce McCain! Why? Principal! And to this point "don't necessarily mean you support absolutely everything a candidate does or believes in".....There is absolutely nothing he believes in that I can agree with.
But Ron *DID* endorse Lamar Smith - so what was your point, again?
ShowMeLiberty
06-12-2012, 08:52 AM
Many may have wanted Rand Paul to publicly stand by his father until the national convention, but it is nice to know that he as a senator feels responsible to the people of his state above others. That is, after all, the role of a senator – to represent his state.
Excellent article. And we would all do well to remember that Rand's priority is not to represent the movement, it is to represent the people of Kentucky.
MadOdorMachine
06-12-2012, 10:16 AM
One thing I haven't seen discussed is how Rand will generate funding should he decide to run for President in the future. His actions have pretty much guaranteed he won't get the kind of donations Ron has from the grassroots. What he did is declare the "Ron Paul 2012 Campaign" over. This goes directly against what Ron himself has said the strategy still is - to get delegates and go to the convention. If that is still Ron's goal (which I haven't heard him say otherwise, correct me if I'm wrong) he should not have endorsed Romney before his state's convention. He literally undermined not only the liberty movement, but also his own career and severely crippled any chance Ron had left of getting the nomination.
He should have stayed out of it until the convention was over and then endorsed Romney. Some people still wouldn't like it, but at least he could have said that he was taking Romney at his word on auditing the Fed in exchange for his endorsement. The way he has handled it though has been a disaster and he will have a hard time getting the grassroots to volunteer for him after this.
Sola_Fide
06-12-2012, 10:20 AM
One thing I haven't seen discussed is how Rand will generate funding should he decide to run for President in the future. His actions have pretty much guaranteed he won't get the kind of donations Ron has from the grassroots. What he did is declare the "Ron Paul 2012 Campaign" over. This goes directly against what Ron himself has said the strategy still is - to get delegates and go to the convention. If that is still Ron's goal (which I haven't heard him say otherwise, correct me if I'm wrong) he should not have endorsed Romney before his state's convention. He literally undermined not only the liberty movement, but also his own career and severely crippled any chance Ron had left of getting the nomination.
Listen to the Peter Schiff interview. Ron and Rand are working together for the good of the liberty movement.
Listen to the Peter Schiff interview. Ron and Rand are working together for the good of the liberty movement.
So is this part of the secret delegate strategy to get Ron elected?
JK/SEA
06-12-2012, 10:27 AM
But Ron *DID* endorse Lamar Smith - so what was your point, again?
Lamar Smith vs Mitt Romney. One a pissant congressman, the other with the possibility of being in command of the Military, and being able to kill americans if he wakes up with a bad hair day. Yeah, great comparison.
Occam's Banana
06-12-2012, 10:37 AM
Lamar Smith vs Mitt Romney. One a pissant congressman, the other with the possibility of being in command of the Military, and being able to kill americans if he wakes up with a bad hair day. Yeah, great comparison.
It IS a great comparison. The principle is EXACTLY the same. If you think that Rand is a "traitor" for endorsing Romney, you must also conclude that Ron is a "traitor" for endorsing Smith - otherwise you are just indulging in emotion-driven "hissy-fit" hypocrisy.
I don't know, he might be losing some purists right now, but if we end up with another 4 years of born again neocon Obama, and Rand keeps on hitting hard on issues like domestic drones, industrial hemp, etc...then he is going to continue to pull a lot of support, and maybe even some cross over too. Earlier I predicted he would lose some of the indy and blue republican support if he were to run in 2016, but I'm not so sure now. Time will tell.
ShowMeLiberty
06-12-2012, 11:07 AM
So is this part of the secret delegate strategy to get Ron elected?
2012 secret delegate strategy = 2008 secret billionaire
Get real, people.
georgiaboy
06-12-2012, 11:10 AM
Yes, but we are compromising even by being in the GOP in the first place. It's a corrupted system. But you've got to start somewhere. I think what people aren't realizing is that we are really only at beginning of this movement, as it is really only just started to gain steam, in terms of real mainstream success. Ron Paul is responsible for that--he has managed to lift the whole vehicle off the ground, and now people like Rand can go in and start really moving things. I think that's what Ron meant about the "egg needing to hatch or it will rot" in his Texas speech.
Thank You!
I wondered what that was all about.
TomtheTinker
06-12-2012, 11:22 AM
The endorsement made my stomach hurt no doubt....but anybody who can't see the upside to what rand has done is most likely being thick headed and letting emotion control them. Personally I wouldn't have done it...but then I will never be in a position to fillabuster things like the patriot act and sopa. I will certainly never be in position to become presidedent.
The Gold Standard
06-12-2012, 11:27 AM
What upside was there to Ron's endorsement of GOP scum in Texas? They redistricted him out of a House seat. I assume Rand's "upside" will be similar.
TomtheTinker
06-12-2012, 11:36 AM
One thing I haven't seen discussed is how Rand will generate funding should he decide to run for President in the future. His actions have pretty much guaranteed he won't get the kind of donations Ron has from the grassroots. What he did is declare the "Ron Paul 2012 Campaign" over. This goes directly against what Ron himself has said the strategy still is - to get delegates and go to the convention. If that is still Ron's goal (which I haven't heard him say otherwise, correct me if I'm wrong) he should not have endorsed Romney before his state's convention. He literally undermined not only the liberty movement, but also his own career and severely crippled any chance Ron had left of getting the nomination.
He should have stayed out of it until the convention was over and then endorsed Romney. Some people still wouldn't like it, but at least he could have said that he was taking Romney at his word on auditing the Fed in exchange for his endorsement. The way he has handled it though has been a disaster and he will have a hard time getting the grassroots to volunteer for him after this.
Rand will keep 50%+ of his fathers activist base and the majority of his voters. Rand will also gain financial support locally and among tea party type voters. If excitement builds behind the campaign and Rand emerges an early fron runner ..funding will not be a problem. Alot of ifs but still a likely scenario. Im not saying I support him at this moment but he has a chance to earn it on the senate floor.
I hope we make it to 2016 to find out.
Yup the "good egg" Ron talked about is referring to our young movement, I think. He was saying it is time for our good ideas to "hatch" and grow. There's no going backwards into obscurity or the flame will die down and the egg will rot...it means we've got to let go of Rand a little bit and let him reach out to broader audiences now, with his own methods. He goes on to remind us that compromise is ok, as long as it isn't compromise on corrupted ideals.
TomtheTinker
06-12-2012, 11:49 AM
What upside was there to Ron's endorsement of GOP scum in Texas? They redistricted him out of a House seat. I assume Rand's "upside" will be similar. you do realize that Ron retired from congress..you do also realize that you can't redistrict a state??
Kidding aside.... Endorsing Mitt takes away a significant piece of ammo the establishment will use to mount an anti Rand campaign. How many votes do you think Mitt gained from Rand's endorsement..not many. How many votes can Rand lose in a Republican primary(senate or president) if he didn't atleast give the illusion of supporting Obama's (also illusionary) opponent. ...ALOT.
The Gold Standard
06-12-2012, 11:51 AM
you do realize that Ron retired from congress..you do also realize that you can't redistrict a state??
Kidding aside.... Endorsing Mitt takes away a significant piece of ammo the establishment will use to mount an anti Rand campaign. How many votes do you think Mitt gained from Rand's endorsement..not many. How many votes can Rand lose in a Republican primary(senate or president) if he didn't atleast give the illusion of supporting Obama's (also illusionary) opponent. ...ALOT.
You realize that Ron retired from Congress in part because of how they redrew his district? Rand's reward for kissing warmongering ass will be the same smears and marginalization that Ron received, unless he starts supporting wars and money printing, in which case, I don't care what happens to him.
TomtheTinker
06-12-2012, 11:59 AM
I agree if Rand supported wars and money printing he is not to be cared about..that's not the case. You have every right to be angry..I am too. Im just saying although the pill may be bitter..there may be more upside for the cause of freedom than some people are willing to admit..I am in now way saying there isn't negatives.
As far as Ron Congressional district being redrew ..I have heard speculation from people other than Ron himself of that being a reason he retired. Haven't heard it from the person who actually retired though..have you?
The Gold Standard
06-12-2012, 12:02 PM
I agree if Rand supported wars and money printing he is not to be cared about..that's not the case. You have every right to be angry..I am too. Im just saying although the pill may be bitter..their may be more upside for the cause of freedom than some people are willing to admit..I am in now way saying the isn't negatives.
As far as Ron Congressional district being redistricted ..I have heard speculation from people other than Ron himself of that being a reason he retired. Haven't heard it from the person who actually retired though..have you?
It doesn't matter if that is why he is retiring. The fact is that Ron endorse the slimy GOP thugs in 2010 to get along with the state GOP. They repaid him by redrawing his district making him much more difficult for him to win reelection. That is how far you will get trying to play nice with those despicable animals.
TomtheTinker
06-12-2012, 12:06 PM
You wouldn't have brought it up to help prove your point if it didn't matter.
Slimy little thugs will be slimy little thugs...that's not who were trying to convince that the cause of freedom is just.
jmdrake
06-12-2012, 12:09 PM
Not arguing with the OP article, but if Rand had said "Hell no! I won't endorse Mitt Romney!" would the author have said "Rand Paul non Endorsement of Mitt Romney Proves He's a True Libertarian Leader"?
Not arguing with the OP article, but if Rand had said "Hell no! I won't endorse Mitt Romney!" would the author have said "Rand Paul non Endorsement of Mitt Romney Proves He's a True Libertarian Leader"?
The article title could be saved entirely for after the convention. Having such an article is irrelevant until then, because there is no nominee until then.
DerailingDaTrain
06-13-2012, 02:44 AM
@whippoorwill, endorsements don't necessarily mean you support absolutely everything a candidate does or believes in. In reality endorsements are used more like political capital. Remember when Rand endorsed Massie. Rand probably really did support Massie wholly on principle in this case, but politically speaking, what Rand was doing was putting his political capital and weight behind him. This is why Massie's win was also a win for Rand and increased his political power. It proved his endorsement had weight behind it, enough to get others elected, and would have been a blow to Rand if Massie had lost. If you noticed after Massie's win, hit pieces in the media started rolling in on Rand too...and this is why.
And yea, it is kind of a sham that endorsements are used this way, but that's the reality of it. Politics is about power brokering. That's what Rand did-- he power brokered. Invested his own political capital in Romney, expecting a return in his own political stature...which he can then later use in investments of his own choosing. Like, I don't know, investing in the next Massie, or whoever.
Either endorsements are meaningless or they aren't. If they are meaningless then why even endorse?
Either endorsements are meaningless or they aren't. If they are meaningless then why even endorse?
I didn't say they were meaningless. Just that they can be made for various different reasons, and don't necessarily reflect a total endorsement of everything about a candidate's philosophy or record. Sometimes they are made purely for political reasons, or to highlight some specific issue, or because a deal has been made for some specific piece of legislation, or as a token of support for the party, etc, etc. Everything isn't black and white.
They can also mean different things to different people. For someone whose main concern is just beating the Democrat, an endorsement can be a very big deal, and can make or break their support for someone. There are some Republicans who would completely shut Rand out no matter what he says or does, if he refuses to endorse, and a lot of these same people held a grudge against Ron for the same reason.
But, I think, if you are a libertarian or voluntaryist...then I don't see how it is even possible that Rand could have sold you out, because your decision and judgement was always your own to begin with. Rand never had it to sell in the first place. So no, the endorsement doesn't matter much to me personally, because I know Rand is just speaking for himself and my vote (or lack thereof) will reflect my own choice and judgement.
Liberty74
06-13-2012, 06:00 AM
Some might see this as a wise move politically for Paul and the movement but I see this as a way for the Republicans to co-opt our message, hence get our support and vote. Many are already falling it...
Some might see this as a wise move politically for Paul and the movement but I see this as a way for the Republicans to co-opt our message, hence get our support and vote. Many are already falling it...
I think Rand has done a pretty good job so far retaining his status as a figurehead for the Tea Party. I think that is a good sign, so far, of his ability to resist co-option. But time will tell.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.