Rand Paul gets speaking slot at Republican National Convention

[jct74]

Santorum, Jeb, Rand Paul get convention speaking slots

By MAGGIE HABERMAN | 8/7/12 12:07 AM EDT

Via Reuters (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-santorumbre87604t-20120806,0,3008737.story), the latest news on convention slots for the RNC:



Rick Santorum, the former presidential candidate who lobbed harsh criticism at Romney during some bitter primary contests, will join a host of other big-name Republicans as headline speakers, according to Republican sources.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush will also speak at the convention, along with Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin and tea party hero and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Paul spent much of the year campaigning against Romney on behalf of his father, Texas Congressman Ron Paul.


Some Romney advisers, per the story, had argued against giving Santorum the stage, given his harsh criticisms of the presumptive nominee in the primaries and the fears he would go off-script. It's hard to see how Santorum or his backers would have stood for that.

Jeb Bush getting a slot is no surprise. Neither is Rand Paul. To that end, all three men are likely 2016 contenders.

Yet while the inclusion of Paul was expected, given the national ambitions he's believed to hold and his dad's interest in preserving them, the selection underscores the following Ron Paul has developed, how important it is to Romney this cycle, and how important it could be to the Kentucky senator in the future.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/08/santorum-jeb-rand-paul-get-convention-speaking-slots-131280.html

[sailingaway]

.....

they will regret it.

And frankly, if Rand accepted this when Ron's speaking is in doubt, during Ron's election year, I don't think much of that. It feels like he is using his DAD's popularity as leverage and undermining Ron's own leverage, to me.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/08/santorum-jeb-rand-paul-get-convention-speaking-slots-131280.html

[RickyJ]

Well no VP offer for Rand, no one scheduled to speak ahead of time will be the VP. I guess this is all Rand gets for endorsing Romney. It certainly wasn't worth it.

[JK/SEA]

can't wait. I wonder if Rand will bring up the Bilderberg group?

[eleganz]

Would be cool if they announce Rand Paul and Ron steps out. :D

[RickyJ]

can't wait. I wonder if Rand will bring up the Bilderberg group?

Now why would he do that?

He will probably talk about the economy and ways to get it going again. This election won't be about gays, and it won't be about Iran, it will be about jobs.

[sailingaway]

We will nominate Ron from the floor.

[CPUd]

I wouldn't be surprised if this was offered back when Rand endorsed Romney. The only way this comes out good is if Ron does give a nomination speech, Rand gives his some time afterward, when the voting is done. Perhaps Rand would be the one to introduce Romney.

[The Gold Standard]

We already know what the speech will be, and I hope the Paul delegates raise hell and boo the shit out of it. It will be Obama this and Obama that and we can't afford four more years of Obama. Mitt is best for the economy. Mitt is best on foreign policy. Anyone planning to nominate Ron from the floor should forget about it. Etc.

[Sola_Fide]

Well no VP offer for Rand, no one scheduled to speak ahead of time will be the VP. I guess this is all Rand gets for endorsing Romney. It certainly wasn't worth it.

What he gets out of endorsing the establishment is the establishment's support for him in 2016. If it pans out like this, it was well worth the trade-off.

[JK/SEA]

We already know what the speech will be, and I hope the Paul delegates raise hell and boo the shit out of it. It will be Obama this and Obama that and we can't afford four more years of Obama. Mitt is best for the economy. Mitt is best on foreign policy. Anyone planning to nominate Ron from the floor should forget about it. Etc.

yep...game ...set...match.....have a nice day.

[sailingaway]

What he gets out of endorsing the establishment is the establishment's support for him in 2016. If it pans out like this, it was well worth the trade-off.

to some here, perhaps.

[Indy Vidual]

Let's see what he will have to say...

[JK/SEA]

Let's see what he will have to say...

no.

[newbitech]

Good for Rand. It's bad enough he has to go toe to toe with people he will never change. It's even worse he has to do it with half his fathers supporters ready to tar and feather him for daring to pick up where his father left off.

[sailingaway]

Good for Rand. It's bad enough he has to go toe to toe with people he will never change. It's even worse he has to do it with half his fathers supporters ready to tar and feather him for daring to pick up where his father left off.

Except he hadn't left off.

Is he or is he not trying to speak at convention?

[CPUd]

They might have messed up putting Tricky Ricky up there. He doesn't have as many 'real' delegates as the press would have you believe.

But that does probably mean he will release them.

[newbitech]

Except he hadn't left off.

Is he or is he not trying to speak at convention?

It's a changing of the guard. There is overlap. It's no big deal.

[sailingaway]

It's a changing of the guard. There is overlap. It's no big deal.

seriously?

I'm not going over it all, we had it out for weeks here. Let's just say I disagree.

Now, maybe he knows Ron WILL be nominated from the floor. If so that might be overlap. Otherwise it is more like in Ron's place. imho.

[RickyJ]

Except he hadn't left off.

Is he or is he not trying to speak at convention?

Ron certainly wants to speak at the convention, no doubt about that.

The best case scenario right now is that both of them get to speak and Romney doesn't win on the first round. It would sure make it a very interesting convention.

[newbitech]

seriously?

I'm not going over it all, we had it out for weeks here. Let's just say I disagree.

Yeah, seriously. I understand why people are pissed. I just think it's aiming at the wrong guy. Making Rand a scapegoat for the failures of Ron Paul and his campaign to secure the nomination 3 times in the last 20 years is preposterous. It's the republican party who is reluctant to honor Ron Paul, not his son, and not his supporters.

[cocrehamster]

There is no way that they would allow Ron to give HIS speech unless he receives it from being nominated. I'd rather Rand give a watered down speech than Ron.

[sailingaway]

There is no way that they would allow Ron to give HIS speech unless he receives it from being nominated. I'd rather Rand give a watered down speech than Ron.

I'd rather if Ron can't that they have no illusions or pretense of having our support in any way, personally.

[sailingaway]

Yeah, seriously. I understand why people are pissed. I just think it's aiming at the wrong guy. Making Rand a scapegoat for the failures of Ron Paul and his campaign to secure the nomination 3 times in the last 20 years is preposterous. It's the republican party who is reluctant to honor Ron Paul, not his son, and not his supporters.

I personally believe the endorsement had an impact on the success of the campaign, specifically TX and Oregon and other late conventions. I would not be surprised if some in the campaign thought it was a good idea, but I don't.

[QWDC]

I was starting to wonder if the RNC was going to invite any TEA party types at all, do they really think it would over well if they snubbed them entirely? Good for Rand though, it will further raise his profile and help paint him as a future leader of the fiscal conservative/TEA party movement in the minds of viewers and the media.

[AJ Antimony]

Rand: "Ladies and gentlemen... I'm honored to introduce our next speaker, my father, Dr. Ron Paul!"

Why not?

[RickyJ]

Rand: "Ladies and gentlemen... I'm honored to introduce our next speaker, my father, Dr. Ron Paul!"

Why not?

I wish, but from what I have seen of Rand lately, I doubt it.

[John F Kennedy III]

What he gets out of endorsing the establishment is the establishment's support for him in 2016. If it pans out like this, it was well worth the trade-off.

This.

[tsai3904]

Rand: "Ladies and gentlemen... I'm honored to introduce our next speaker, my father, Dr. Ron Paul!"

Why not?

Because Ron is still a candidate and I don't see how the RNC can schedule in a speaking slot for someone who's still trying to win the nomination. There's not going to be an assigned speaking slot for Romney.

[sailingaway]

Because Ron is still a candidate and I don't see how the RNC can schedule in a speaking slot for someone who's still trying to win the nomination. There's not going to be an assigned speaking slot for Romney.

He could easily have been asked. Everyone was talking about would he be or wont he be, in and out of the GOP.

I'd rather we nominate him from the floor, and I hope Rand's doing this signals that Romney is not going to fight that.

[John F Kennedy III]

Rand: "Ladies and gentlemen... I'm honored to introduce our next speaker, my father, Dr. Ron Paul!"

Why not?

Replace speaker with President and it'll be the perfect speech :)

[tsai3904]

He could easily have been asked. Everyone was talking about would he be or wont he be, in and out of the GOP.

I'd rather we nominate him from the floor, and I hope Rand's doing this signals that Romney is not going to fight that.

I think it will come down to the Credentials Committee determining whether or not we have the 5 states. If they determine we don't have the 5 states, then I can see them giving Ron a speaking slot. If they determine we do have the 5 states, then there's no point in giving Ron a speaking slot.

It wouldn't make sense to announce a slot for Ron and then the Credentials Committee determining we do have the 5 states.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I wish, but from what I have seen of Rand lately, I doubt it.
Rand has been going the extra mile helping get our people elected.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0L-lRJhVqo

[sailingaway]

I really have a problem with Rand speaking there if Ron's speaking is in doubt. Without Romney's opposition, Ron will be nominated from the floor, he clearly won more than 5 states. If Romney is removing opposition, I would expect the credentials committee to make that finding.

If he is still opposing Ron speaking there, for Rand to speak there undermines Ron's leverage, imho. Do you think he would have gotten that spot were he not Ron's son?

[ProvincialPeasant]

It's funny how so many Paulites think they are so indispensable to the GOP and to libertarian candidates, in this case Rand Paul, that by withdrawing their support they'll be able to change the world. When you withdrew your support from Romney and gave it all to Ron Paul, he didn't win the nomination remember? You can't complain about the GOP excluding you when all you do is attack them.

[Brian4Liberty]

Jeb Bush? Happy happy joy joy. I am not looking forward to four years of the establishment pushing Jeb...

[sailingaway]

It's funny how so many Paulites think they are so indispensable to the GOP and to libertarian candidates, in this case Rand Paul, that by withdrawing their support they'll be able to change the world. When you withdrew your support from Romney and gave it all to Ron Paul, he didn't win the nomination remember? You can't complain about the GOP excluding you when all you do is attack them.

I don't consider them on our side, but I think we are supposed to consider Rand on our side. and there was a whole lot of cheating going on. And yes they can do it again, and may consider us not indispensable, but then why is Rand speaking there? I hope Ron will be nominated from the floor. Without that, it seems like they were given a cheap way out.

[bunklocoempire]

Rand has given the Romney endorsement, now he might very well take Romney publicly to the woodshed.

Given the public's memory, a possible woodshed moment might be forgotten all together come 2016. (Republican party, blah blah, party, blah blah, don't let the D's win, blah, blah)

If the possible woodshed moment is to be brought up in 2016, all woes then current (things won't get better without liberty) could be traced back to not listening to the 'Pauls'.

Santorum and Jeb? Lord help us.

Using the Republican party without gettin' any on ya is friggin' nerve wracking. :toady:

Someone get me a switch.;)

[RickyJ]

Rand has been going the extra mile helping get our people elected.



I hope I am wrong and he does try to give it to his father, but I have doubts that he would upset the establishment by doing it against their wishes. Like I said I hope I am wrong. We will see soon.

[RickyJ]

It's funny how so many Paulites think they are so indispensable to the GOP and to libertarian candidates, in this case Rand Paul, that by withdrawing their support they'll be able to change the world. When you withdrew your support from Romney and gave it all to Ron Paul, he didn't win the nomination remember? You can't complain about the GOP excluding you when all you do is attack them.

Huh? We can't blame the GOP for breaking their own rules, hiring off duty policemen to break bones of Ron Paul delegates? We can and do blame them for this. The GOP needs us, we sure they heck don't need them!

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I personally believe the endorsement had an impact on the success of the campaign, specifically TX and Oregon and other late conventions.

Paul received about 10% of the vote vs. Romney's 70%+, despite being the only non-Romney candidate still running at the time. It was over, everyone knew Romney was the nominee.

[sailingaway]

He got about 10% of the vote vs. Romney's 70%+, despite being the only non-Romney candidate still running at the time. It was over, everyone knew Romney was the nominee.

the fight at the state convention level was in full force and the crowds were getting ever larger. Ron had won multiple state conventions and was looking strong in ones to come. His DELEGATE support was much greater. People's bones were being broken to get Ron delegates. Let's not go over the facts on both sides, we had weeks of that.

Regardless, at this point Ron's support should give him a speech, and he should be nominated from the floor. Romney being nominee has nothing to do with Ron winning 5 states. Perhaps it is the plan that Ron will be nominated from the floor and Romney's campaign will drop its opposition to seating his delegates. But right now, they are on different sides, even yet.

[Indy Vidual]

Jeb Bush? Happy happy joy joy. I am not looking forward to four years of the establishment pushing Jeb...

four years?
Do you prefer a huge Jeb surge 4 days before this years convention? :o

[sailingaway]

four years?
Do you prefer a huge Jeb surge 4 days before this years convention? :o

I sure do, because then there will be a brokered convention and many things are possible.

[John F Kennedy III]

four years?
Do you prefer a huge Jeb surge 4 days before this years convention? :o

Jeb nominated from the floor? :eek:

Actually I wouldn't be surprised.

[devil21]

given the national ambitions he's believed to hold and his dad's interest in preserving them

Is this fact or opinion?

They'd be better off nominating Romney than Jeb. Another Bush? GTFO.

[ProvincialPeasant]

Huh? We can't blame the GOP for breaking their own rules, hiring off duty policemen to break bones of Ron Paul delegates? We can and do blame them for this. The GOP needs us, we sure they heck don't need them!

Even if they followed the rules, Ron Paul would still not win the nomination in any fashion remotely resembling the wishes of Republican voters.

Now everyone, run along and vote for Gary Johnson.

[Revolution9]

Even if they followed the rules, Ron Paul would still not win the nomination in any fashion remotely resembling the wishes of Republican voters.

Now everyone, run along and vote for Gary Johnson.

Piss up a rope shiller. Ron in your face rules the political game and they can put all the fake presidents in office they want. The real American President is Ron Paul. It will be so even if they install their figureheads through subterfuge. Ron Paul is an idea..the rest are merely candidates for office..and those generally suck wind hard. Like you.

Rev9

[LibertyEagle]

We already know what the speech will be, and I hope the Paul delegates raise hell and boo the shit out of it. It will be Obama this and Obama that and we can't afford four more years of Obama. Mitt is best for the economy. Mitt is best on foreign policy. Anyone planning to nominate Ron from the floor should forget about it. Etc.

That would be stupid. Surely you must know that Ron Paul would neither want that, nor find such action constructive in any way.

[LibertyEagle]

I personally believe the endorsement had an impact on the success of the campaign, specifically TX and Oregon and other late conventions. I would not be surprised if some in the campaign thought it was a good idea, but I don't.

Rand endorsing Romney is not why Ron Paul didn't get the nomination. I didn't agree with when he did it, either. But, to blame him for this whole thing is kinda ridiculous, don't you think?

[aclove]

Look, this comes down to one fact, pure and simple. No one who has not publicly endorsed Mitt Romney is going to be permitted to speak. No questions asked, no further discussion, game over. You either endorse the guy who will be on the ballot in November, or you don't address the convention that will make it official. That's why Rand is speaking, and Ron is not. I don't know why anyone finds this surprising or thinks it would be any other way.

Do I like it? No, of course not.

Did I expect it? Well, sure. And so should everyone else.

Ron doesn't want some huge confrontation at the convention. He just doesn't. It's not his style, and it goes against his personal grain. What he does want is for Rand to be able to continue in his place without the establishment fighting him tooth and nail every inch of the way, the way they've done Ron over the last 30 years, and particularly for the last 5. The Romney endorsement and RNC speaking slot pave the way for that.

[pacelli]

Is this fact or opinion?

They'd be better off nominating Romney than Jeb. Another Bush? GTFO.

Romney is Bush's cousin.


Believe it or not, Mitt Romney and George W. Bush are cousins — 10th cousins, twice removed, that is. Historians at Ancestry.com, the world’s largest online family-history resource, have discovered that Romney is actually related to six past presidents — more than any other 2012 GOP contestant. Franklin D. Roosevelt is his eighth cousin, twice removed, and both Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover are his 10th cousins. Then there is his sixth cousin (four times removed) Franklin Pierce, and both 10th cousins Bush I and II. Three out of these six were even (gasp!) Democrats.

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/12/20/family-ties-ancestry-com-finds-that-romney-and-george-w-are-cousins/#ixzz22rH8Sbfs


The more things change, the more they stay the same.


I hope Rand delivers another message from the Tea Party. I guess we'll see how well he reads from teleprompters.

[parocks]

Well no VP offer for Rand, no one scheduled to speak ahead of time will be the VP. I guess this is all Rand gets for endorsing Romney. It certainly wasn't worth it.

Rand kept his word. He said he'd endorse the nominee, and he did. I'm not sure what he gets.

Ron Paul supporters (some, very vocal ones) made it clear that Romney / Rand was not for them. Romney saw this and said (perhaps) I don't like this response. I won't be getting what I want with this guy. The Ron Paul supporters are not going to carry the weight we assigned to them. That's what Romney is thinking. I can see how he thinks that, but I think that Ron Paul supporters would get on board with Romney / Rand, and that ticket would work. I can't see any Ron Paul supporter, in November, not pulling the lever for Rand Paul. No matter what they say now.

[parocks]

We will nominate Ron from the floor.

That is what we're trying to do. I want Maine to vote for Ron Paul.

[Eire4RonPaul]

Rand kept his word. He said he'd endorse the nominee, and he did. I'm not sure what he gets.

Ron Paul supporters (some, very vocal ones) made it clear that Romney / Rand was not for them. Romney saw this and said (perhaps) I don't like this response. I won't be getting what I want with this guy. The Ron Paul supporters are not going to carry the weight we assigned to them. That's what Romney is thinking. I can see how he thinks that, but I think that Ron Paul supporters would get on board with Romney / Rand, and that ticket would work. I can't see any Ron Paul supporter, in November, not pulling the lever for Rand Paul. No matter what they say now.

Why would an informed Ron Paul supporter pull the lever for Rand Paul - in this case the apple has fallen very far from the tree. Rand might be a great guy but he is not like his father on issues and it's unwise to assume he is - he's already proved it. Voting for Rand Paul is a total direct contradiction to the Liberty movement. Period.

There are better options.

[LibertyEagle]

Why would an informed Ron Paul supporter pull the lever for Rand Paul - in this case the apple has fallen very far from the tree. Rand might be a great guy but he is not like his father on issues and it's unwise to assume he is - he's already proved it. Voting for Rand Paul is a total direct contradiction to the Liberty movement. Period.
Bullshit. Overall, Rand is doing great.


There are better options.
If and when they present themselves, I am sure everyone will evaluate them.

Bullshit.

[Eire4RonPaul]

Bullshit. Overall, Rand is doing great.


If and when they present themselves, I am sure everyone will evaluate them.

Bullshit.

Stop deluding yourself - you're not helping the situation.

Wake up and smell the coffee - Rand was NEVER on our side. "Doing great"..huh? "I endorse Mitt Romney for President"...yeah, he's doing a stand up job. By your logic, Ron Paul would clinch the nomination if he comes out and kisses Mitts ass on stage....get off it will you...call a spade, a spade. The Paul family already said Rand acted alone.

What the hell are you even doing on this website?! Go over to the neo-con forums. You'll find you'll be much more at home over there.

[Tinnuhana]

If Ron is nominated from the floor, doesn't he automatically get a 15 min speech? So maybe they're assuming this is going to happen? Or maybe, like 2008, they'll ban him from the convention unless he has an escort?
Frankly, after GOP opposition to and denigration of Ron Paul, his supporters and his delegates, I don't see how I could then turn and vote for their pre-chosen candidate. That would verge on Stockholm Syndrome.

[affa]

Ron doesn't want some huge confrontation at the convention. He just doesn't. It's not his style, and it goes against his personal grain. What he does want is for Rand to be able to continue in his place without the establishment fighting him tooth and nail every inch of the way, the way they've done Ron over the last 30 years, and particularly for the last 5. The Romney endorsement and RNC speaking slot pave the way for that.

I don't understand why the Rand apologists think the Establishment is so stupid that a few well timed actions and words from Rand will convince them he's 'one of them'. Rand Paul is a Paul. They know that. They will always know that. He can kiss all the ass he wants, and he's not ever going to be the establishment darling. They will never trust him to do their bidding.

At best, he's the Irish guy working for the mob.

Now, sure, if Rand somehow magically became president in 2016, and ended the wars and ended the fed and all that, it would be grand. kittens and cupcakes! But our hopes and dreams for that is EXACTLY why he'll always be fighting the same uphill battles his father does.

[affa]

I can't see any Ron Paul supporter, in November, not pulling the lever for Rand Paul. No matter what they say now.

Open your eyes. I'm not pulling the lever for Romney. PERIOD. I will not vote for anyone who will continue these wars. That you think so low of us all speaks volumes.

And I'm not going to suddenly start praying in foxholes, either.

[Rudeman]

Why would an informed Ron Paul supporter pull the lever for Rand Paul - in this case the apple has fallen very far from the tree. Rand might be a great guy but he is not like his father on issues and it's unwise to assume he is - he's already proved it. Voting for Rand Paul is a total direct contradiction to the Liberty movement. Period.

There are better options.

I disagree with you but just out of curiosity, who do you view as the better options?

[parocks]

Open your eyes. I'm not pulling the lever for Romney. PERIOD. I will not vote for anyone who will continue these wars. That you think so low of us all speaks volumes.

And I'm not going to suddenly start praying in foxholes, either.

It really doesn't matter what you say here. The only way we'd know what would happen in that case is if Rand was nominated. I'm saying that you'd vote for Rand, you're saying no. We'd only know what the truth is if Rand got the nomination.

[parocks]

Stop deluding yourself - you're not helping the situation.

Wake up and smell the coffee - Rand was NEVER on our side. "Doing great"..huh? "I endorse Mitt Romney for President"...yeah, he's doing a stand up job. By your logic, Ron Paul would clinch the nomination if he comes out and kisses Mitts ass on stage....get off it will you...call a spade, a spade. The Paul family already said Rand acted alone.

What the hell are you even doing on this website?! Go over to the neo-con forums. You'll find you'll be much more at home over there.

Our side? You have 26 posts. What side are you on? It seems like you're on the "never win anything" side. I'm on the US Senator Rand Paul side, or put differently, the Paul side.

This is not "libertarianpartyforums.com".

[LibertyEagle]

Stop deluding yourself - you're not helping the situation.

Wake up and smell the coffee - Rand was NEVER on our side. "Doing great"..huh? "I endorse Mitt Romney for President"...yeah, he's doing a stand up job. By your logic, Ron Paul would clinch the nomination if he comes out and kisses Mitts ass on stage....get off it will you...call a spade, a spade. The Paul family already said Rand acted alone.
He always said he was going to endorse the eventual nominee. While I disagree with when he did it, he HAD TO endorse the nominee at some point, if he didn't want to be sidelined.


What the hell are you even doing on this website?! Go over to the neo-con forums. You'll find you'll be much more at home over there.

ROFLMAO at you.

I'm here supporting Ron and Rand Paul. What are you doing, besides driving wedges?

Are you even an American citizen, Eire?

[Drex]

Santorum???? Ohhhhh jeeezeeeeee

[parocks]

Stop deluding yourself - you're not helping the situation.

Wake up and smell the coffee - Rand was NEVER on our side. "Doing great"..huh? "I endorse Mitt Romney for President"...yeah, he's doing a stand up job. By your logic, Ron Paul would clinch the nomination if he comes out and kisses Mitts ass on stage....get off it will you...call a spade, a spade. The Paul family already said Rand acted alone.

What the hell are you even doing on this website?! Go over to the neo-con forums. You'll find you'll be much more at home over there.

What the hell are you even doing on this website?! Go over to the neo-con forums. You'll find you'll be much more at home over there.

Said post count 26 to post count 37,000

[parocks]

Why would an informed Ron Paul supporter pull the lever for Rand Paul - in this case the apple has fallen very far from the tree. Rand might be a great guy but he is not like his father on issues and it's unwise to assume he is - he's already proved it. Voting for Rand Paul is a total direct contradiction to the Liberty movement. Period.

There are better options.

Who are better US Senators than Rand Paul?

I want our people to get VP picks.

You are not helpful to any pro Libertarian argument, any pro Gary argument, if you suggest that a vote for Gary is preferred to a vote for Rand as VP.

The argument for Gary, here, is 1) Ron Paul is best. 2) Rand Paul is 2nd best 3) Gary is the best choice for Ron Paul supporters to flex their muscle, make a difference.

There's no reason at all to discuss ideology. Gary Johnson will lose. Because of that, it doesn't matter exactly what his positions are. Protest candidates really don't need to be held under the microscope.

No reasonable person thinks Gary stands a chance, with Ron Paul supporters, against a Paul, and it only turns Paul supporters off if you suggest otherwise.

[Origanalist]

Stop deluding yourself - you're not helping the situation.

Wake up and smell the coffee - Rand was NEVER on our side. "Doing great"..huh? "I endorse Mitt Romney for President"...yeah, he's doing a stand up job. By your logic, Ron Paul would clinch the nomination if he comes out and kisses Mitts ass on stage....get off it will you...call a spade, a spade. The Paul family already said Rand acted alone.

What the hell are you even doing on this website?! Go over to the neo-con forums. You'll find you'll be much more at home over there.

Well then! I guess he (she?) told you LE!
:rolleyes: :p

[V3n]

(These GJ supporters are really making it hard to keep coming back here, every thread ends up the same no matter how the topic began.)

I'm glad Rand gets a speaking slot. I hope we see the man who campaigned so hard for his father, not the man who gave a 30-second blurb on a tv show about Romney. We shall see!

I'm optimistic and I'll wait to see what he actually says before I start criticizing him just for accepting the slot.

[Brett85]

.....

they will regret it.

And frankly, if Rand accepted this when Ron's speaking is in doubt, during Ron's election year, I don't think much of that. It feels like he is using his DAD's popularity as leverage and undermining Ron's own leverage, to me.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/08/santorum-jeb-rand-paul-get-convention-speaking-slots-131280.html

They won't allow anyone to speak at the convention who doesn't openly endorse the party's nominee. That's why Rand is speaking and Ron isn't.

[vita3]

Rand sold the grass-roots movement out, endorsing Romney before the Convention.

One of his rewards is the establishment gives him this speaking gig

Liberty movement needs new legit leadership.

[rockandrollsouls]

That won't be happening, part of the reason being the official campaign not fighting for us.


We will nominate Ron from the floor.

[asurfaholic]

(These GJ supporters are really making it hard to keep coming back here, every thread ends up the same no matter how the topic began.)

I'm glad Rand gets a speaking slot. I hope we see the man who campaigned so hard for his father, not the man who gave a 30-second blurb on a tv show about Romney. We shall see!

I'm optimistic and I'll wait to see what he actually says before I start criticizing him just for accepting the slot.

I agree. Looking forward to seeing the liberty message get represented on the big stage!

[Brett85]

What the hell are you even doing on this website?! Go over to the neo-con forums. You'll find you'll be much more at home over there.

Says the guy with 26 posts.

[kathy88]

Our side? You have 26 posts. What side are you on? It seems like you're on the "never win anything" side. I'm on the US Senator Rand Paul side, or put differently, the Paul side.

This is not "libertarianpartyforums.com".

He's on Gary Johnson's side. Pretty clear.

[69360]

Good for Rand. He's in a great place for the next election now.

Rand is the best senator we have and it's still not good enough for some. People that ideological will never win elections. Whatever.

In the end Rand is Ron's son. He must be proud as hell of him. I would be if one of my kids did as well as Rand is doing even if they didn't agree with me on every little issue.

[specsaregood]

I can't wait to hear Rand's speech. He gives great ones.

[cajuncocoa]

Stop deluding yourself - you're not helping the situation.

Wake up and smell the coffee - Rand was NEVER on our side. "Doing great"..huh? "I endorse Mitt Romney for President"...yeah, he's doing a stand up job. By your logic, Ron Paul would clinch the nomination if he comes out and kisses Mitts ass on stage....get off it will you...call a spade, a spade. The Paul family already said Rand acted alone.


Well, I don't care if you have 26 posts or 26,000....I agree with what you said here.

[TrishW]

Sometimes I have feelings that are too hard to express in words. Reading this news of Rand Paul has made me sick to my stomach.

It would be sad enough if Rand quietly allowed Romney to become the candidate for the Republicans. I cannot believe those among us who see this as a good thing. Do you even know what you are supporting when you support a man who would endorse Romney?

[specsaregood]

Do you even know what you are supporting when you support a man who would endorse Romney?

Yeah, I do. I support a man who is our absolute best senator by leaps and bounds. Perhaps you should go look at what Rand has been doing in the Senate and how he has been helping reshape the GOP rather than base your support on some meaningless endorsement.

[Feeding the Abscess]

$35 million, and all we got was his son grovelling before Romney for the whole world to see.

[Ronulus]

Yeah, I do. I support a man who is our absolute best senator by leaps and bounds. Perhaps you should go look at what Rand has been doing in the Senate and how he has been helping reshape the GOP rather than base your support on some meaningless endorsement.


Wait..... If it's meaningless why did he do it?

[Eire4RonPaul]

He's on Gary Johnson's side. Pretty clear.

I'm on the side of Liberty, it's apparent that I'm not among similar minded folks here....

All I'm saying is that we must support whomever has the best chance of winning this election. If Ron Paul is not on the ballot, it makes zero sense not to have your protest vote registered. To advance the message of Liberty, we need Johnson in that national debate. For that, he needs 15% and he's not that far off. Why would you shoot yourself in the foot at this stage? I'm not a Gary Johnson supporter, I'm a supporter of Liberty and any candidate that supports this cause - thus, I'm going to vote for whomever advances that cause and at this very moment in time, Gary Johnson just so happens to have the best chance of becoming the President moreso than Ron Paul.

Rand Paul is not like his father, the sheer fact that people on here would consider voting for him or Mitt speaks volumes and diminishes the journey we have come through....I thought we were better than this. Seems like most of us can STILL be so easily manipulated....

[TrishW]

Yeah, I do. I support a man who is our absolute best senator by leaps and bounds. Perhaps you should go look at what Rand has been doing in the Senate and how he has been helping reshape the GOP rather than base your support on some meaningless endorsement.

I know the bills that Rand Paul introduces and supports. I also know that Romney will lead this country into more war, and more debt. He does not just do evil... he is evil. Rand would hand us all over to him if it were possible. In my case ... it is not.

[whippoorwill]

I fucking hope so!


We will nominate Ron from the floor.

[specsaregood]

Wait..... If it's meaningless why did he do it?

Because he had promised to do just that? And he waited until the final day before the KY convention to follow through on his word? This has all been covered ad nauseum. You either want to hold a grudge about it or you don't. i prefer to measure him based on his votes and legislation, not some silly endorsement. Hell, even in the endorsement he said he prefered his father be president.

[georgiaboy]

Great news that Rand is up there. Compared to 2008, we've climbed Everest.

We have multiple state delegations, hundreds of RP delegates. Our impact will be felt at the convention, and the future looks bright.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNGXsgLRkXU

[TrishW]

Could this be the difference between Rand and Ron?

Ron is a libertarian who uses the Republican Party.
Rand is a Republican who uses the libertarians.

Sure its all there... but its ass back-wards.

[V3n]

Or maybe Rand is a Republican that uses Republicans to speak at the Republican convention about the message of LIBERTY!

We'll know in a few short weeks...

[kathy88]

All I'm saying is that we must support whomever has the best chance of winning this election.

And that's Gary Johnson?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You're new here, aren't you?

[TrishW]

Or maybe Rand is a Republican that uses Republicans to speak at the Republican convention about the message of LIBERTY!

We'll know in a few short weeks...

If that were true, I could write his speech. "I release my time to my father... Ron Paul!"

[musicmax]

What he gets out of endorsing the establishment is the establishment's support for him in 2016. If it pans out like this, it was well worth the trade-off.

Give me a break. The establishment tried to take him out in the primary with a former Democrat. The establishment will support Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio, and Heather's Two Mommies before they support Rand Paul.

[The Gold Standard]

And that's Gary Johnson?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You're new here, aren't you?

I think he means the one who has the better chance between Ron or Gary Johnson, in which case Johnson does have a better chance since Ron won't be on the ballot. I still think not voting at all would be a better option than voting for any of the scum that will be on the ballot. I would rather not endorse the sham of a process.

[musicmax]

And that's Gary Johnson?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You're new here, aren't you?

Call your local board of elections and see if Obamney has more votes than Johnson.

[kathy88]

Ron will get more write ins than Gary gets votes. We just won't hear about it.

[jbauer]

You're welcome to not consider some of the GOP on your side. It is what it is. When Ron's gone thats when the Paulites split. What I've found so interesting during this whole deal is the diversity from which Ron draws supporters. We're not going to agree on quite a few things. Paul's phylosophy allows for that.

Some of us want financial sanity, some want different foreign policy, some want civil liberties, some jsut don't want Obama....etc. The list is nearly endless and the idea that we'll be able to find a canadate that even remotley appeals to the all of is none. To me if this whole "thing" is to have a future find folks who share high % agreement to your own phlosophy is what we should be all about.

Use me as an example. I'm am and have always been a fiscal conservative. I agree on his foreign policy but not for the exact same reasons he does. Paul's stance has always been the moral stance first and the fiscal stance second. I happen to make sense out of cents in my brain. In my opinion we can't keep dolling out foreign aid and bombing the shit out of everyone who even remotley disagrees with our stances because we can't afford it. My personal belief on foreign policy is that if we made everyone pay for it now we'd be done fighting wars tommrow. Just think if we all got a bill in the mail tommrow (assuming the post office is still going to be there) for say $250/month to keep fighting in Iraq and Afganistan. People would be out in the streets and Ron's idea of peace and prosparity would happen over night. All of this hinges on the ability of our government to print baby print and since no one is forced right now to feel that personal pain we find it easy to send young kids to their deaths without even thinking about it.


I don't consider them on our side, but I think we are supposed to consider Rand on our side. and there was a whole lot of cheating going on. And yes they can do it again, and may consider us not indispensable, but then why is Rand speaking there? I hope Ron will be nominated from the floor. Without that, it seems like they were given a cheap way out.

[sailingaway]

Rand endorsing Romney is not why Ron Paul didn't get the nomination. I didn't agree with when he did it, either. But, to blame him for this whole thing is kinda ridiculous, don't you think?

You are twisting my words. My thought is that in TX (and other late convention states) where Ron came very close to winning the majority of delegates and didn't get delegates in multiple CD caucuses because of the lack of a single vote, he may well have lost the state due to the endorsement (if he lost it, I'm not sure of the final count and it was close.) More states would make it less possible to pretend Ron doesn't have 5 states and isn't entitled by right to speak at the convention. My view is that Ron's light is brighter than any other liberty candidate on the horizon to the point where this, his last campaign, should be entirely about fanning that light brighter to bring more in.

Someone else usurping that spotlight doesn't seem like a friendly act.

[Liberty74]

What he gets out of endorsing the establishment is the establishment's support for him in 2016. If it pans out like this, it was well worth the trade-off.

Only a fool thinks that way. Rand didn't get establishment support in 2010 and he won't get it in 2016 unless he flip flops on all the issues. Meaning Rand has been co-opted and controlled by the elites pushing for the NWO agenda. Oops, never mind, Rand already has been conned by endorsing Romney and lying about the fact the Romney supports auditing the FED when in fact Romney said there was no need. This is all about delivering YOU to the Romney campaign. It's so obvious that many in here have their blinders on.

And as I predicted, no way in hell was Romney or the RNC going to allow Ron a speaking slot. Yet, big govt fascist Santorum gets one? It's all a fucking sham.

[jolynna]

no.

Ditto.

[ClydeCoulter]

You are twisting my words. My thought is that in TX (and other late convention states) where Ron came very close to winning the majority of delegates and didn't get delegates in multiple CD caucuses because of the lack of a single vote, he may well have lost the state due to the endorsement (if he lost it, I'm not sure of the final count and it was close.) More states would make it less possible to pretend Ron doesn't have 5 states and isn't entitled by right to speak at the convention. My view is that Ron's light is brighter than any other liberty candidate on the horizon to the point where this, his last campaign, should be entirely about fanning that light brighter to bring more in.

Someone else usurping that spotlight doesn't seem like a friendly act.

^^ THIS has got to be the best, most tactful, description I have heard on the subject. rep it to high heaven, I can't ^^

[sailingaway]

They won't allow anyone to speak at the convention who doesn't openly endorse the party's nominee. That's why Rand is speaking and Ron isn't.

And if the endorsement was a pitch for that ignoring that it takes the light off Ron in Ron's election year, using the leverage of Ron's support, as I believe a post you posted a while ago suggested to me, I would consider that problematic.

However, at this point, for all I know Rand knows they are no longer fighting to disqualify Ron's delegates, and they are both going to speak.

[Eire4RonPaul]

And that's Gary Johnson?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You're new here, aren't you?

I've been in this race since before you were wearing diapers.

Ron Paul will not be on the ballot sadly. Who else have we got? GJ is the only one liberty candidate at this point still in the race. At 15%, he can enter the debates with Romney and Obama. We can either help him or we can forget about this whole thing after August - your decision. I know what I'll be doing. Mathematically, I am correct in saying Johnson is the only Liberty minded candidate with the best chance of winning at this point, yes...

You may not like it, but it's the truth. And the more you deny it, the more you're setting yourself up for an even greater disappointment come the RNC.

[jolynna]

Yeah, seriously. I understand why people are pissed. I just think it's aiming at the wrong guy. Making Rand a scapegoat for the failures of Ron Paul and his campaign to secure the nomination 3 times in the last 20 years is preposterous. It's the republican party who is reluctant to honor Ron Paul, not his son, and not his supporters.

Yes...SUCH AN HONOR.

Rand Paul gets to share the stage with Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and Rick Santorum.

Tell me again why voting for a GOP is better than voting for Obama?

I need one of those bags like they provide on airplanes for passengers who feel sick...

Just when I thought things couldn't get worse.

In my opinion.

[sailingaway]

Compare:


I've been in this race since before you were wearing diapers.

Ron Paul will not be on the ballot sadly. Who else have we got? GJ is the only one liberty candidate at this point still in the race. At 15%, he can enter the debates with Romney and Obama. We can either help him or we can forget about this whole thing after August - your decision. I know what I'll be doing. Mathematically, I am correct in saying Johnson is the only Liberty minded candidate with the best chance of winning at this point, yes...

You may not like it, but it's the truth. And the more you deny it, the more you're setting yourself up for an even greater disappointment come the RNC.


It's not that people are not interested, it just seems that when one money-bomb ends, another one begins...

I'm all for donating (I can't donate directly to the cause because I'm European also) but I give unofficial Ron Paul campaigns as much as I can. However, I'd be pissed off if my money went into making some of these half-assed promotional TV commercials. The last one, "Secure" was atrocious I thought. A quick glance over YouTube and you can find professional standard videos made by the grassroots that are far better at hammering home the message than these official TV adverts will ever be. They are also far more creative and thought-provoking. I think Pauls campaign team sucks....

I'd far sooner donate to the grassroots than give those official campaign coordinators a cent to piss away.

[Eire4RonPaul]

Compare:

You don't think I take an interest in European politics or get involved actively where I happen to live? I am a member of countless Libertarian and other organizations right across the globe. My family are US citizens. What exactly is your point? And does your point extend to the fact that someone from another country should not be cheering for Ron Paul? Perhaps you think that right is exclusive to Americans? Pfft. The freedom message is global - and predates Ron Paul by centuries. Get your act together.

The very philosophy i.e - Austrian economics which Paul preaches is American too, right?

[trey4sports]

let me break it down....ron will not be speaking and rand will be speaking.

there isn't a chance in hell they will let ron paul (who will not be endorsing mitt romney) speak at the convention.

Also, Mitt will lose the general election.

[sailingaway]

You don't think I take an interest in European politics or get involved actively where I happen to live? I am a member of countless Libertarian and other organizations right across the globe. My family are US citizens. What exactly is your point? And does your point extend to the fact that someone from another country should not be cheering for Ron Paul? Perhaps you think that right is exclusive to Americans? Pfft. The freedom message is global - and predates Ron Paul by centuries. Get your act together.

No, but you specifically have been speaking in terms of 'who you will vote for in November' which seems dishonest if you can't vote.

We have several people here who are interested and aren't citizens. But they don't pretend otherwise, typically.

[JK/SEA]

Rand Paul: ''let it not be said we did nothing. Now, to all the grassroots supporters out there...get behind the next President of the United States, Mitt Romney''...yay!

[JK/SEA]

let me break it down....ron will not be speaking and rand will be speaking.

there isn't a chance in hell they will let ron paul (who will not be endorsing mitt romney) speak at the convention.

Also, Mitt will lose the general election.

yeah, and i'll get blamed for it.

[AuH20]

Rand sold the grass-roots movement out, endorsing Romney before the Convention.

One of his rewards is the establishment gives him this speaking gig

Liberty movement needs new legit leadership.

huh????? Ron lost well before Rand agreed to endorse Romney.

[LibertyEagle]

Yes...SUCH AN HONOR.

Rand Paul gets to share the stage with Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and Rick Santorum.

Tell me again why voting for a GOP is better than voting for Obama?

I need one of those bags like they provide on airplanes for passengers who feel sick...

Just when I thought things couldn't get worse.

In my opinion.

Assuming Ron doesn't get the nomination, who here is voting for Romney. Maybe a few, but I doubt very many.

I'd rather Ron be speaking, for sure, but if that is not possible, I'm glad Rand is going to.

The constant insult fest around here towards Rand has gotten beyond pathetic.

[sailingaway]

huh????? Ron lost well before Rand agreed to endorse Romney.

leave that out of it. There is and was more being fought for than the ultimate nomination. All the furor over 'who speaks' makes that pretty clear, don't you think?

[tsai3904]

Rand's statement:


"In the past four years, we have seen the national debt soar at the hands of failed Democrat policies. We are nearing a fiscal cliff and are in desperate need of a change of direction. Whether it is Obamacare, Dodd-Frank or the EPA's war on coal, American jobs and growth are being stifled by the current policies. I believe Governor Romney would help our country start a new path, where job creators are encouraged not punished, and where the size and scope of government are brought under control. I am honored to speak about our Republican vision for the future at the national convention in Tampa."

[LibertyEagle]

leave that out of it. There is and was more being fought for than the ultimate nomination. All the furor over 'who speaks' makes that pretty clear, don't you think?

He did it. It happened. How many times are you going to run him through the wringer about it? When is it enough?

Rand is by far the best Senator we have had in this country since I don't know when and the vast majority I see about him on this forum are insults.

[Sola_Fide]

Voting for Rand Paul is a total direct contradiction to the Liberty movement. Period.

Huh?

[JK/SEA]

$35 million, and all we got was his son grovelling before Romney for the whole world to see.

yeah, i just recently took that paper bag off my head.

[sailingaway]

He did it. It happened. How many times are you going to run him through the wringer about it? When is it enough?

Rand is by far the best Senator we have had in this country since I don't know when and the vast majority I see about him on this forum are insults.

If Rand is speaking as a 'tame libertarian' from the GOP's perspective, and Romney's campaign is doing it to try to win US, Ron's supporters, and thinks he then doesn't have to let Ron speak, I think it is something new that deserves comment. In my view it is RON's support that earned any consideration of any Paul for a speaking slot. Rand's record is Rand's record. I appreciate it on civil liberties, but what gives Ron's record conviction is that he doesn't vary from it for political goodies. Otherwise it is hard to know if someone voting on the perpetually losing side is really fighting for it or pandering. When I fell in love with Ron's record it was because of his sticking to principles even when it meant he gave up benefits other Congressmen sell out for.

I don't know Rand's motives, but if his speaking at RNC dims the light even an iota on Ron, I don't think it is worth it.

[AuH20]

Ron sparked an incredible movement but ultimately went 0/3 in his presidential bids. I think Ron understood this and parlayed his leverage into this opportunity for his son. All I care about is that Rand gets exposure. This type of advertising would cost several million dollars.

[sailingaway]

Ron sparked an incredible movement but ultimately went 0/3 in his presidential bids. I think Ron understood this and parlayed his leverage into this opportunity for his son. All I care about is that Rand gets exposure. This type of advertising would cost several million dollars.

then it seems to me it should be Ron's.

[LibertyEagle]

then it seems to me it should be Ron's.

Yes, it should be. But, if it cannot be then wouldn't you rather have Rand than nothing?

[sailingaway]

Yes, it should be. But, if it cannot be then wouldn't you rather have Rand than nothing?

Absolutely not, I'd want it shown that we are opposed to anyone who would shut Ron and his support out. This undermines that imho. Bluntly, I think had Rand not endorsed, they'd have HAD to deal with Ron.

[georgiaboy]

I don't know Rand's motives, but if his speaking at RNC dims the light even an iota on Ron, I don't think it is worth it.

Would it surprise you if you found out that Ron was delighted by the fact that Rand was getting to speak at the convention? Do you think Rand will mention his father during his speech?

It seems like every time Ron talks about his son, he's very pleased with the inroads Rand is making into party leadership. Getting a speaking slot at the convention is a big inroad.

[sailingaway]

Would it surprise you if you found out that Ron was delighted by the fact that Rand was getting to speak at the convention? Do you think Rand will mention his father during his speech?

It seems like every time Ron talks about his son, he's very pleased with the inroads Rand is making into party leadership. Getting a speaking slot at the convention is a big inroad.

If Rand mentions Ron I will likely throw up, at this point. I feel very strongly it is Ron's place, and Rand is taking it. And I am sure Ron who is humble literally to a fault, will make it good that Rand is speaking, but it doesn't work for me, at all.

In my view Ron is the Pied Piper of liberty. Once he wasn't likely to win the nomination, it became all about making the most of this by putting the brightest possible spotlight on him in this his last campaign. Trading this for that...

[LibertyEagle]

You are twisting my words. My thought is that in TX (and other late convention states) where Ron came very close to winning the majority of delegates and didn't get delegates in multiple CD caucuses because of the lack of a single vote, he may well have lost the state due to the endorsement (if he lost it, I'm not sure of the final count and it was close.) More states would make it less possible to pretend Ron doesn't have 5 states and isn't entitled by right to speak at the convention. My view is that Ron's light is brighter than any other liberty candidate on the horizon to the point where this, his last campaign, should be entirely about fanning that light brighter to bring more in.

Someone else usurping that spotlight doesn't seem like a friendly act.

More likely, if RON PAUL hadn't sent out that confusing as all hell email that he was going to stop actively campaigning, we might have been able to get a few more delegates.

No one seems to want to put the blame where the blame belongs. Of course, most of it belongs with the GOP establishment and the corporate media.

[LibertyEagle]

If Rand mentions Ron I will likely throw up, at this point. I feel very strongly it is Ron's place, and Rand is taking it. And I am sure Ron who is humble literally to a fault, will make it good that Rand is speaking, but it doesn't work for me, at all.

You say that like there is an option for Ron and oh crud, Rand stepped in there and took it from him. You know that isn't true.


Absolutely not, I'd want it shown that we are opposed to anyone who would shut Ron and his support out. This undermines that imho. Bluntly, I think had Rand not endorsed, they'd have HAD to deal with Ron.

The establishment would just ignore us, like they always have. They don't HAVE TO deal with us at all. Not until we have the power to make that impossible.

[Root]

Any chance of Rand going "off script" or am I just optimisticly dreaming again?

[sailingaway]

You say that like there is an option. Like there is an option for Ron and oh crud, Rand stepped in there and took it from him. You know that isn't true.

No, I absolutely don't. Given the crowds that were growing and the damn near certainty of Ron winning 5 states that existed at the time Rand endorsed I think it absolutely took that leverage from Ron and Rand's speaking slot is a result of that. I'm not saying Rand analyzed it that way, but I think that is why he has a slot himself. And I do think they would have had to deal with Ron if Rand had just waited until after RNC. And they couldn't have done that without giving Ron an unedited speaking slot. (Because Ron Paul does not do edited.)

If they don't cheat, Ron has won at least 6 states and can not only be nominated from the floor but demand roll call votes. If Rand speaking is intended to placate us if the RNC cheats to not permit that, they are insane. And if they do cheat Ron, I can't see how else to take this. Now if they have signaled they are going to quit fighting to disqualify his delegates as it becomes more and more transparent that Ron has the states, that is different.

[realtonygoodwin]

Look, this comes down to one fact, pure and simple. No one who has not publicly endorsed Mitt Romney is going to be permitted to speak. No questions asked, no further discussion, game over. You either endorse the guy who will be on the ballot in November, or you don't address the convention that will make it official. That's why Rand is speaking, and Ron is not. I don't know why anyone finds this surprising or thinks it would be any other way.

Do I like it? No, of course not.

Did I expect it? Well, sure. And so should everyone else.

Ron doesn't want some huge confrontation at the convention. He just doesn't. It's not his style, and it goes against his personal grain. What he does want is for Rand to be able to continue in his place without the establishment fighting him tooth and nail every inch of the way, the way they've done Ron over the last 30 years, and particularly for the last 5. The Romney endorsement and RNC speaking slot pave the way for that.


THIS. As long as he hasn't conceded, why would anyone expect him to have a slot. If he really wanted a speaking slot that badly, I think he could get one. I am sure he would like one, but not badly enough to do what is necessary to receive an invite.


Romney is Bush's cousin.



The more things change, the more they stay the same.


I hope Rand delivers another message from the Tea Party. I guess we'll see how well he reads from teleprompters.

Oh come on. You and I are probably 10th cousins twice removed. Everyone in the world is related in some way.


Why would an informed Ron Paul supporter pull the lever for Rand Paul - in this case the apple has fallen very far from the tree. Rand might be a great guy but he is not like his father on issues and it's unwise to assume he is - he's already proved it. Voting for Rand Paul is a total direct contradiction to the Liberty movement. Period.

There are better options.

Please name all the issues where Rand is far from his father.

List all the anti-liberty votes he has cast. The anti-liberty bills he has sponsored.

Name one Senator more pro-liberty than Rand. Don't limit yourself to the current Senate. Go back 20 years.

Come on now, people.

We go from having to have our own convention down the street to having one of the rising stars of the liberty movement getting a prime speaking slot at the Convention? That's huge!

Of course Rand wouldn't be where he is now without his father. He stands on the shoulders of giants, and he knows it. But he has already gotten so much farther than his father has. A US Senator is in a vastly different position than a US Representative and a three time failed Presidential candidate. You can say all you want about Ron is your President and you don't recognize the NWO puppets in office blah blah blah, but the fact remains that when decisions get made at the highest level, is Ron Paul making that decision, or is Barack Obama?

And everyone, please keep in mind that not everyone supports Ron for the same reasons you do. We are all individuals, and have our own reasons for supporting Ron Paul.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Stop deluding yourself - you're not helping the situation.

Wake up and smell the coffee - Rand was NEVER on our side. "Doing great"..huh? "I endorse Mitt Romney for President"...yeah, he's doing a stand up job. By your logic, Ron Paul would clinch the nomination if he comes out and kisses Mitts ass on stage....get off it will you...call a spade, a spade. The Paul family already said Rand acted alone.

What the hell are you even doing on this website?! Go over to the neo-con forums. You'll find you'll be much more at home over there.
Sit down string bean. You got 20 posts, you're nobody.

Edit: You're not American either???

[LibertyEagle]

No, I absolutely don't. Given the crowds that were growing and the damn near certainty of Ron winning 5 states that existed at the time Rand endorsed I think it absolutely took that leverage from Ron and Rand's speaking slot is a result of that. I'm not saying Rand analyzed it that way, but I think that is why he has a slot himself. And I do think they would have had to deal with Ron if Rand had just waited until after RNC. And they couldn't have done that without giving Ron an unedited speaking slot. (Because Ron Paul does not do edited.)

If they don't cheat, Ron has won at least 6 states and can not only be nominated from the floor but demand roll call votes. If Rand speaking is intended to placate us if the RNC cheats to not permit that, they are insane. And if they do cheat Ron, I can't see how else to take this. Now if they have signaled they are going to quit fighting to disqualify his delegates as it becomes more and more transparent that Ron has the states, that is different.

Ok, Sailing. Believe what you want to believe. But, I think you are looking for people to blame for largely the result of Ron's own actions. Your neverending insulting of Rand has gotten really old though.

[sailingaway]

Ok, Sailing. Believe what you want to believe. But, I think you are looking for people to blame for largely the result of Ron's own actions. Your neverending insulting of Rand has gotten really old though.

please show me the insult. Because I don't think I do that. I point out causes and results I see, but I have been careful not to ascribe motives because I don't know them.

[LibertyEagle]

please show me the insult. Because I don't think I do that. I point out causes and results I see, but I have been careful not to ascribe motives because I don't know them.

Just read back over your posts. You blame him for everything short of global warming. /sarcasm

[Bastiat's The Law]

Ron sparked an incredible movement but ultimately went 0/3 in his presidential bids. I think Ron understood this and parlayed his leverage into this opportunity for his son. All I care about is that Rand gets exposure. This type of advertising would cost several million dollars.
Rand will be a superstar, and this sets it up beautifully for a 2016 presidential run.

[AuH20]

If Rand mentions Ron I will likely throw up, at this point. I feel very strongly it is Ron's place, and Rand is taking it. And I am sure Ron who is humble literally to a fault, will make it good that Rand is speaking, but it doesn't work for me, at all.

In my view Ron is the Pied Piper of liberty. Once he wasn't likely to win the nomination, it became all about making the most of this by putting the brightest possible spotlight on him in this his last campaign. Trading this for that...

I think your point would have greater validity if Ron wasn't retiring. It would be a snub if Ron was still a politically active candidate but to my knowledge this is the end. I think with Ron exiting, it's almost too logical for Ron to pass the torch to his son.

[parocks]

Wait..... If it's meaningless why did he do it?

He promised to endorse whoever the nominee was. It's a ritual.

[parocks]

I've been in this race since before you were wearing diapers.

Ron Paul will not be on the ballot sadly. Who else have we got? GJ is the only one liberty candidate at this point still in the race. At 15%, he can enter the debates with Romney and Obama. We can either help him or we can forget about this whole thing after August - your decision. I know what I'll be doing. Mathematically, I am correct in saying Johnson is the only Liberty minded candidate with the best chance of winning at this point, yes...

You may not like it, but it's the truth. And the more you deny it, the more you're setting yourself up for an even greater disappointment come the RNC.

this one is mostly reasonable. "making a measurable impact" more than "winning". We're in "black swan" event for GJ and winning.

[liveandletlive]

will be interesting what notes he's allowed to hit on.

[kathy88]

Sit down string bean. You got 20 posts, you're nobody.

Edit: You're not American either???

Nope. And apparently old as fuck.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I think your point would have greater validity if Ron wasn't retiring. It would be a snub if Ron was still a politically active candidate but to my knowledge this is the end. I think with Ron exiting, it's almost too logical for Ron to pass the torch to his son.
I concur. I love the passion for Ron Paul here, but he's riding off into the sunset after a beautiful career and spearheading a real movement. That was his role as a teacher and educator of liberty. He succeeded in that endeavor by awakening millions. It's time to transition to a new post-Ron era and focus on getting our people into Congress. The Rand-era where we start achieving political victories across the board is upon us. Rand will have long coattails in 2016 so I hope you guys are ready for the ride.

I love Ron Paul too, but its time to buck up and move on. I'm sure Ron will still have a role in the movement, kind of like a proud father who sits back seeing his children grow into their own, occasionally giving consul from afar. I don't want to see this turn into a cult of personality. I'm glad there's some pragmatic Paul supporters out there like the Liberty for All Super PAC. If it wasn't for them would we have even won Thomas Massie's seat? Would we even be in the running with Kerry Bentivolio? Paul supporters tend to get so myopic in their focus of Ron Paul they forget to support the movement he ignited and these rising liberty stars. I don't want to see this movement fizzle out like so many have before simply because the "leader" steps out of the limelight or retires.

[sailingaway]

Just read back over your posts. You blame him for everything short of global warming. /sarcasm
ad hominum LE?

[sailingaway]

I think your point would have greater validity if Ron wasn't retiring. It would be a snub if Ron was still a politically active candidate but to my knowledge this is the end. I think with Ron exiting, it's almost too logical for Ron to pass the torch to his son.

That he is retiring makes it all the more important we use him while we have him, imho. Rand speaks to some, and he will be there in the future to speak to those. but many only hear Ron. We don't have a ready replacement to pick up THOSE people.

[TrishW]

Rand's statement:"In the past four years, we have seen the national debt soar at the hands of failed Democrat policies. We are nearing a fiscal cliff and are in desperate need of a change of direction. Whether it is Obamacare, Dodd-Frank or the EPA's war on coal, American jobs and growth are being stifled by the current policies. I believe Governor Romney would help our country start a new path, where job creators are encouraged not punished, and where the size and scope of government are brought under control. I am honored to speak about our Republican vision for the future at the national convention in Tampa."

OK... This statement makes Rand either a fool, a liar.. or both?

Romney's plans are going to add to the national debt. Romney does not want to repeal healthcare, he simply wants to replace it with his own version. Romney's view on Iran is going to lead us into another costly, deadly war. Romney agrees more with Obama then he does any of us.

If Rand was really fighting for our country, he would be doing every thing in his power not to have Romney nominated. Instead Rand has placed his own future in politics ahead of all of us. I need a barf bag before I listen to him speak.

You can't dance with the devil without getting burned. So please don't blame the ones who speak up against Rand. He is choosing to do this to himself.

[NoOneButPaul]

Its like people think Rand and Ron are estranged and never talk to one another...

[aclove]

Here's a question for everyone fuming and setting their hair on fire because Rand is speaking and Ron is not (at least so far, a complete list has not yet been released):

Why in God's name are YOU more pissed off about this than RON is?

Has an email gone out from Ron about the injustice of it all? Has he asked us to call Reince Priebus and our state RNC Committeemen demanding that he be allowed to speak?

No?

Then I have to believe he's happy to have Rand speak in his place. Since Ron will not endorse Romney and no one who has not endorsed Romney will be allowed to speak, it's absolutely the best we were ever going to get.

Feel free to answer the above question or not, it was kind of rhetorical anyway, but let me also say this:

I believe this rancor comes down to a very basic division within this movement. There are Liberty activists out there who want to elect candidates to office (and not just the Presidency) because they want to see policy changed. They understand that in order to accomplish this, messaging must be targeted, and votes must be cast by people beyond our own movement. Those people have to be approached on their issues, with their language, and, more than anything, they must identify with our candidates. The "change policy" liberty activists understand that these things, and particularly the last thing, cannot be accomplished if Liberty candidates only speak to our issues using our language.

The other half of our movement adheres much more to the Mises Institute/LewRockwell.com model, which considers politics in general as a hopeless endeavor and values political candidacies ONLY for the sake of "spreading the message." Since that's the only value they see in running for office, tailoring the message to address the issues that voters are actually concerned about (instead of lecturing them about the issues we think they should be concerned about) corrupts and destroys the only reason anyone should run for office to start with. Nuance is betrayal, and the only acceptable posture in the face of resistance from the establishment is war to the knife. Every hill is THE hill to die on.

While it may seem like these two positions are irreconcilable, they don't have to be. We have a movement that is large enough to have leaders who appeal to each camp. Ron isn't interested in speaking at the RNC if he has to endorse Romney to do it, so he won't. I don't get the impression he's even really mad about it. He'll speak at his Tampa event, and anyone who wants to go to that is welcome to.

For our delegates who've invested time and a whole lot of money to go to the RNC, they'll get to see Rand, and continue making inroads in the GOP, whether the GOP wants us to or not.

If you're too angry to accept that different people in our movement are going to pursue their activism in the way that makes the most sense to them, perhaps you're not as libertarian as you think you are.

[LibertyEagle]

ad hominum LE?

No, fact.

Do you really think it is necessary that I parrot your own words back to you, when you can just review this one thread alone? No, I didn't think so.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Nope. And apparently old as fuck.
Well age aside, talk about biting off your nose to spite your face. Rand is the future of the movement and anything he touches usually turns to gold, think Thomas Massie and Mr. Hightower in Kentucky. For every Rand hater, Rand will win over thousands of new converts because he's intelligent, funny, and charismatic. Most importantly, he's also right on the issues! Nobody sells liberty to the masses like Rand Paul; nobody.

[sailingaway]

Well age aside, talk about biting off your nose to spite your face. Rand is the future of the movement and anything he touches usually turns to gold, think Thomas Massie and Mr. Hightower in Kentucky. For every Rand hater, Rand will win over thousands of new converts because he's intelligent, funny, and charismatic. Most importantly, he's also right on the issues! Nobody sells liberty to the masses like Rand Paul; nobody.

Uh.....

http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ron-paul-ucla-4.jpg

IMHO Rand sells better to habitual GOP primary voters, but he doesn't wake the apathetic, because he covers his light too much. Up to the individual which is more attractive, but I think it is undeniable that we have no replacement for what RON does, and this is his last campaign go round.

[Badger Paul]

"Ron doesn't want some huge confrontation at the convention."

Then we have to make the confrontation.

[Bastiat's The Law]

That he is retiring makes it all the more important we use him while we have him, imho. Rand speaks to some, and he will be there in the future to speak to those. but many only hear Ron. We don't have a ready replacement to pick up THOSE people.
Ron Paul isn't an old car tire you get ride till it finally pops on the highway. Ron has been fighting the good fight for 35+ years. He's earn a well-deserved rest and he can spend time with his family and get back to his passion of ride bicycles; Ron is so cute.

http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/files/2011/09/Paul-2012.JPEG-011d7.jpg

[aclove]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, more apathetic/non-GOP voters come see Ron than Rand. However, if the people in the above photo didn't change their voter registrations, vote in the GOP primary in their state, and become delegates, then frankly, they didn't do Ron's campaign any good.

Rand appeals to Republicans who were probably going to vote anyway, yes. If we don't win those people over, we don't win elections, and we don't change policy.

I realize that winning elections and changing policy isn't what it's about for many people in this movement. But for a lot of us, it is, and that's why we happily see Rand's potential, rather than being enraged that Ron isn't the nominee (again).

[sailingaway]

Yeah, but cute isn't what drew the crowd at UCLA. Or Berkeley, or Chico, or Fullerton, or UTAustin or A&M or Michigan, or Wisconsin....

[Bastiat's The Law]

Its like people think Rand and Ron are estranged and never talk to one another...
Right? :o the presumption that anonymous forum posters know better is hilarious.

[aclove]

"Ron doesn't want some huge confrontation at the convention."

Then we have to make the confrontation.

Why would you make a confrontation on behalf of a man who doesn't want a confrontation?

[sailingaway]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, more apathetic/non-GOP voters come see Ron than Rand. However, if the people in the above photo didn't change their voter registrations, vote in the GOP primary in their state, and become delegates, then frankly, they didn't do Ron's campaign any good.

Rand appeals to Republicans who were probably going to vote anyway, yes. If we don't win those people over, we don't win elections, and we don't change policy.

I realize that winning elections and changing policy isn't what it's about for many people in this movement. But for a lot of us, it is, and that's why we happily see Rand's potential, rather than being enraged that Ron isn't the nominee (again).

the next go round they change registration. I was GOP forever but never voted in primaries until Ron Paul 2008. The first experience is part of the learning curve, but if we don't bring in new people, I see little chance for success.

[sailingaway]

Why would you make a confrontation on behalf of a man who doesn't want a confrontation?

Ron doesn't value himself as we do.

--
edit, I am not suggesting a bru ha ha if they don't cheat about Ron's delegates. If they are good hosts, by the rules, we should be good guests, by the rules. I was responding to why are we fighting this when Ron doesn't seem to be fighting this situation. I also think it being a done deal, Ron wouldn't want to hurt Rand by speaking out, regardless.

[cajuncocoa]

Yes, it should be. But, if it cannot be then wouldn't you rather have Rand than nothing?No.

[Badger Paul]

A lot of people spent a lot of time and money to become delegates for this moment, to see RP's name put in nomination and had a real vote on the convention floor. To have an actual working convention instead of North Korea-style brainwashed rally. Some of those people were carted off to jail. Some of those people were hurt in the process. Having Rand speak is fine but it will not make up for Ron being shutout of the convention again for the sacrifices that were made to become delegates. If that happens there will be a lot of upset people who felt they came all that way for nothing. It would behoove Romney to simply let Ron have his 15 minutes in order to ensure a satisfied convention. Who knows? Maybe it will make for some converts along the way, it can't hurt. But if this turns into a "Every one bow down before me" convention, a lot of people will feel betrayed and rightly so. This isn't about speaking slots for some pre-approved pablum written by the Romney campaign high command. This about reaching a goal, the end of a five-year journey that I and a lot of us remember from Day 1 back in 2007. They've earned the opportunity to reach the end.

[aclove]

the next go round they change registration. I was GOP forever but never voted in primaries until Ron Paul 2008. The first experience is part of the learning curve, but if we don't bring in new people, I see little chance for success.

Do you really believe that Ron will stop touring around and preaching liberty to whomever will listen just because he isn't running for office? Touring college campuses and talking about ideas is all he ever really wanted to do anyway; running for President was simply a means to that end for him. If he continues to do that, and I believe he will, does that allay some of your concerns?

[aclove]

Ron doesn't value himself as we do.

--
edit, I am not suggesting a bru ha ha if they don't cheat. I was responding to why are we fighting this when Ron doesn't seem to be.

I'm not suggesting that the man is not humble; he surely is. But how can we simply decide that regardless of whether or not Ron wants a public spectacle waged on his behalf, WE know what's best and we're going to show our asses if he doesn't get a speaking slot he doesn't even seem that interested in?

[SilentBull]

Well no VP offer for Rand, no one scheduled to speak ahead of time will be the VP. I guess this is all Rand gets for endorsing Romney. It certainly wasn't worth it.

It was never about the short term benefit. It will help him in 2016.

[cajuncocoa]

Sit down string bean. You got 20 posts, you're nobody.

Edit: You're not American either???Post count is irrelevant. And I don't see what someone not being an American has to do with their opinion on this website. Remember this?

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ly50170d13.jpg

The people in that pic aren't Americans either.

[Brett85]

Reading this news of Rand Paul has made me sick to my stomach.

It makes you sick to your stomach that Rand is speaking at the Republican convention?


Do you even know what you are supporting when you support a man who would endorse Romney?

Yeah, a Republican.

[tsai3904]

Just curious what people's thoughts are:

If Ron was the presumed nominee and Romney was the last fallen candidate, would you give Romney a 15 minute unedited speaking slot?

[Eire4RonPaul]

Sit down string bean. You got 20 posts, you're nobody.

Edit: You're not American either???

I didn't know post counts were a reflection of one's qualifications, education, principle or integrity. If that is so, it seems you may be a qualified Loser that sits in front of a RP forum too much. I will be voting, yes. It's good to see peoples assumptions of this movement as an inward looking, inbred shower of flag waving morons is proving correct because I certainly cannot see any contradiction when it comes to foreign people on this site....do you take exception to this? If so, it seems Ron Paul is not your ideal candidate so...because this is a world movement, NOT an American movement.

And for the record, I'm sure you can come up with something a little less childish than "string bean"....lmfao.

[sailingaway]

Do you really believe that Ron will stop touring around and preaching liberty to whomever will listen just because he isn't running for office? Touring college campuses and talking about ideas is all he ever really wanted to do anyway; running for President was simply a means to that end for him. If he continues to do that, and I believe he will, does that allay some of your concerns?

do you really believe that makes up for an internationally televised speech at RNC being nominated from the floor as hasn't happened since 1976?

[sailingaway]

Just curious what people's thoughts are:

If Ron was the presumed nominee and Romney was the last fallen candidate, would you give Romney a 15 minute unedited speaking slot?

Absolutely. Are you kidding? His thoughts have no traction.

--

edit, I'd even give one to Palin, and like her or don't, her thoughts do have traction. It isn't about traction and how best to game the system, it is about our conventions to elect nominees NOT BEING SUPPOSED TO BE gaming the system, but actual working meetings to develop the direction of the party, including acknowledging stars selected by delegates for the various factions that have support. And that would be Ron, here.

[Badger Paul]

Then what's the point of being a Ron Paul delegate?

[sailingaway]

I'm not suggesting that the man is not humble; he surely is. But how can we simply decide that regardless of whether or not Ron wants a public spectacle waged on his behalf, WE know what's best and we're going to show our asses if he doesn't get a speaking slot he doesn't even seem that interested in?

It isn't just a speaking slot it is a nomination from the floor and a real convention not a show coronation for the first time since 1976. It sounds like you didn't watch Ron's speech to the Texas state convention (the same day Rand endorsed) reminding people he had been a delegate in 1976 for Reagan and that that had been the last time the people actually got to choose the nominee -- and that he thought that was the way conventions should be.

[AuH20]

Then what's the point of being a Ron Paul delegate?

The fruits remain to be seen. As soon as the Romney people go against their promises, they will have a vigilant enemy for life. Either way we win. (A) gradually adopt our policy planks or (B) incite a long, brutal conflict in which they will suffer. They can do it the hard way or the easy way. The ball is in their court.

[sailingaway]

I didn't know post counts were a reflection of one's qualifications, education, principle or integrity. If that is so, it seems you may be a qualified Loser that sits in front of a RP forum too much. I will be voting, yes. It's good to see peoples assumptions of this movement as an inward looking, inbred shower of flag waving morons is proving correct because I certainly cannot see any contradiction when it comes to foreign people on this site....do you take exception to this? If so, it seems Ron Paul is not your ideal candidate so...because this is a world movement, NOT an American movement.

And for the record, I'm sure you can come up with something a little less childish than "string bean"....lmfao.

we welcome foreign supporters. I posted your past comment because you were trying to persuade people to vote a certain way saying that is how you would vote, when you wouldn't be voting at all. It was about honesty, not nationality.

[aclove]

do you really believe that makes up for an internationally televised speech at RNC being nominated from the floor as hasn't happened since 1976?

#1: You're operating under the assumption that if Ron was given the opportunity to speak, that the networks would have broadcast it. I've seen nothing from the MSM this year to make me think that would have happened.

#2: I never thought it was realistic to think that the RNC would have allowed Ron to speak if he was not the nominee, for the simple fact that he wasn't going to endorse any of the rest of them. Therefore, I don't have a bunch of expectations that have been dashed by this and I'm not all pissed off.

Yeah, an internationally-televised speech would have reached a lot of people, but long-term, the steady spread of ideas is just as valuable. That will continue as long as Ron is physically able to travel and speak.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Uh.....

IMHO Rand sells better to habitual GOP primary voters, but he doesn't wake the apathetic, because he covers his light too much. Up to the individual which is more attractive, but I think it is undeniable that we have no replacement for what RON does, and this is his last campaign go round.
Sailing you're not following me. Ron Paul was the professor, educating the younger generation, who have matured since 2008 and will again after 2012. We're much more politically savvy now and we're getting a lot of political experience under our belt. Ron Paul was the great awakening and we needed a good teacher for that happen. Ron Paul speaks to political junkies, ideal college students, and people with above average intelligence (the over 120 IQ crowd). Now its time to put that education to good use and get down to practical politics. Rand will speak to that part of the electorate that Ron missed out on; and what's even better he'll bring them over to our side and educate them without them even really realizing it because Rand is that good of a communicator.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC9Q7ufUsl4

[sailingaway]

#1: You're operating under the assumption that if Ron was given the opportunity to speak, that the networks would have broadcast it. I've seen nothing from the MSM this year to make me think that would have happened.

#2: I never thought it was realistic to think that the RNC would have allowed Ron to speak if he was not the nominee, for the simple fact that he wasn't going to endorse any of the rest of them. Therefore, I don't have a bunch of expectations that have been dashed by this and I'm not all pissed off.

Yeah, an internationally-televised speech would have reached a lot of people, but long-term, the steady spread of ideas is just as valuable. That will continue as long as Ron is physically able to travel and speak.

Uh, the pro Dem stations are chomping at the bit and international would have covered it too. The first one since 1976 and RON PAUL? I am absolutely certain it would have been broadcast -- and watched. Even hotair was saying if it happened it would be the only interesting thing at the convention.

[AJ Antimony]

Because Ron is still a candidate and I don't see how the RNC can schedule in a speaking slot for someone who's still trying to win the nomination. There's not going to be an assigned speaking slot for Romney.

You missed my point. I'm saying Rand would take the stage as planned, at his scheduled time, then instead of giving his speech, he would give his time to Ron.

[Eire4RonPaul]

we welcome foreign supporters. I posted your past comment because you were trying to persuade people to vote a certain way saying that is how you would vote, when you wouldn't be voting at all. It was about honesty, not nationality.

My reasoning is logical.

I guess I was wrong to assume others was also logical but perhaps I gave too much credit. If Ron Paul is not on the ballot paper come November (which he will not be - I'm not saying this to be an ass, I'm saying this because I feel it's important to prepare for that outcome now instead of getting disheartened at the RNC, that's all). The lines have been drawn and it seems that the only people that cannot see that, or rather will not accept that are the few die-hard worshipers on here and my appeal to those people was simply to ask them not to let their decisions be clouded...

Here's the deal. If it comes to Goode, Romney and Obama. Would a Libertarian, Constitutionalists or Conservative write in Ron Paul (whom will not be counted and will amount to absolutely nothing) or will they choose Gary Johnson who is also a Ron Paul supporter? It makes sense to me, perhaps it might take a bit more time for others to get their head around that. I'm not a Johnson supporter trying to hijack this...I couldn't give a damn about Johnson or Ron Paul. What I am concerned about is Constitutional government and I don't give one damn who presents it, they'll get my vote.

[LibertyEagle]

Just curious what people's thoughts are:

If Ron was the presumed nominee and Romney was the last fallen candidate, would you give Romney a 15 minute unedited speaking slot?

No way.

[sailingaway]

Sailing you're not following me. Ron Paul was the professor, educating the younger generation, who have matured since 2008 and will again after 2012. We're much more politically savvy now and we're getting a lot of political experience under our belt. Ron Paul was the great awakening and we needed a good teacher for that happen. Ron Paul speaks to political junkies, ideal college students, and people with above average intelligence (the over 120 IQ crowd). Now its time to put that education to good use and get down to practical politics. Rand will speak to that part of the electorate that Ron missed out on; and what's even better he'll bring them over to our side and educate them without them even really realizing it because Rand is that good of a communicator.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC9Q7ufUsl4

Excuse me, but I followed Rand's campaign and donated thousands to it. I am familiar with his communication and charm, and also know he has started to pepper it with red meat which, attractive to some, revolts others. I repeat, Rand will reach GOP primary voters better, however they have a huge stable to pick from in an election when they are only picking their favorite which resulted in the huge surges and clifflike drops in the polls of the 'non Ron Paul' and 'non Romney' candidates this election. Those voters are not loyal, necessarily, and they think many are 'good guys' which makes it easy for the establishment to steer them to another perceived good guy. And Rand doesn't reach the people Ron reaches. Rand will do what he will do, but this campaign is Ron's and it seems like Rand is getting the prize of it and it seems like Ron's leverage is being dissipated for Rand to get it. And we don't have another Ron to get the people he reaches. Rand will be here, later.

Ron's speech at the Texas state GOP convention starts about 4:00


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCyw0azjm0s

[LibertyEagle]

I didn't know post counts were a reflection of one's qualifications, education, principle or integrity. If that is so, it seems you may be a qualified Loser that sits in front of a RP forum too much. I will be voting, yes. It's good to see peoples assumptions of this movement as an inward looking, inbred shower of flag waving morons is proving correct because I certainly cannot see any contradiction when it comes to foreign people on this site....do you take exception to this? If so, it seems Ron Paul is not your ideal candidate so...because this is a world movement, NOT an American movement.

And for the record, I'm sure you can come up with something a little less childish than "string bean"....lmfao.

However, if you are not an American, you will not be voting in this election. So, implying that you are is more than a little disingenuous.

[realtonygoodwin]

My reasoning is logical.

I guess I was wrong to assume others was also logical but perhaps I gave too much credit. If Ron Paul is not on the ballot paper come November (which he will not be - I'm not saying this to be an ass, I'm saying this because I feel it's important to prepare for that outcome now instead of getting disheartened at the RNC, that's all). The lines have been drawn and it seems that the only people that cannot see that, or rather will not accept that are the few die-hard worshipers on here and my appeal to those people was simply to ask them not to let their decisions be clouded...

Here's the deal. If it comes to Goode, Romney and Obama. Would a Libertarian, Constitutionalists or Conservative write in Ron Paul (whom will not be counted and will amount to absolutely nothing) or will they choose Gary Johnson who is also a Ron Paul supporter? It makes sense to me, perhaps it might take a bit more time for others to get their head around that. I'm not a Johnson supporter trying to hijack this...I couldn't give a damn about Johnson or Ron Paul. What I am concerned about is Constitutional government and I don't give one damn who presents it, they'll get my vote.

I would vote for Goode probably in that scenario. Why would I vote for Johnson over Goode?

[aclove]

It isn't just a speaking slot it is a nomination from the floor and a real convention not a show coronation for the first time since 1976. It sounds like you didn't watch Ron's speech to the Texas state convention (the same day Rand endorsed) reminding people he had been a delegate in 1976 for Reagan and that that had been the last time the people actually got to choose the nominee -- and that he thought that was the way conventions should be.

Look, I agree, that is the way conventions should be, but that isn't how it's going to be this year. It just isn't. It'll never be that way ever again until and unless we get more (a LOT more) people involved in the GOP, specifically at the state conventions, and swing the elections of RNC Committeemen and Committeewomen. They make those decisions.

That level of involvement takes time. A lot of time. After my first 3 state conventions, I realized that what we're after here wasn't going to be accomplished within one or two election cycles. We're talking 10, 15, maybe 20 years here. And I know, I know, we don't have that long, the currency's gonna collapse, yada, yada, I get it. Whatever's going to happen with the financial system doesn't change basic human nature, and basic human nature is that radical new ideas take a lot of time to digest and internalize.

We can either accept that, put our heads down, work hard, and be patient, or we can get ulcers being pissed off about it.

[LibertyEagle]

It isn't just a speaking slot it is a nomination from the floor and a real convention not a show coronation for the first time since 1976. It sounds like you didn't watch Ron's speech to the Texas state convention (the same day Rand endorsed) reminding people he had been a delegate in 1976 for Reagan and that that had been the last time the people actually got to choose the nominee -- and that he thought that was the way conventions should be.

Yes, they should. But, the cheating GOP establishment appears to have blocked that from happening. All the more reason why we have to keep replacing them.

[The Free Hornet]

It's funny how so many Paulites think they are so indispensable to the GOP and to libertarian candidates, in this case Rand Paul, that by withdrawing their support they'll be able to change the world. When you withdrew your support from Romney and gave it all to Ron Paul, he didn't win the nomination remember? You can't complain about the GOP excluding you when all you do is attack them.

*** CLICK TO NEG *** (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/reputation.php?do=addreputation&p=4569081)

1) Using "Paulites" in a derogatory manner.

2) Although criticality to the GOP is questionable, it is less so to liberty or libertarian candidates.

3) Who the hell withdrew their support from Romney? He never had my support.

4) Maybe half of what is done is working inside the GOP to improve. With exceptions, most complaints pertain to the nomination process or specific players in the GOP or neocon landscape.





Even if they followed the rules, Ron Paul would still not win the nomination in any fashion remotely resembling the wishes of Republican voters.

Now everyone, run along and vote for Gary Johnson.

*** CLICK FOR FREE PUPPY! *** (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/reputation.php?do=addreputation&p=4569176)

[Bastiat's The Law]

Yeah, but cute isn't what drew the crowd at UCLA. Or Berkeley, or Chico, or Fullerton, or UTAustin or A&M or Michigan, or Wisconsin....
Once again you're missing the point.

[coffeewithchess]

Why would you make a confrontation on behalf of a man who doesn't want a confrontation?

Exactly. More importantly, why go to the convention for a campaign/man that didn't want to win it?

[Eire4RonPaul]

I would vote for Goode probably in that scenario. Why would I vote for Johnson over Goode?

Take a wild guess.

Regardless, writing in Paul is the worst option.

[sailingaway]

Once again you're missing the point.

No, I'm saying your countering my evidence of Ron's ability to speak to crowds with a fairly dismissive comment that he is old and cute pissed me off.

[parocks]

Exactly. More importantly, why go to the convention for a campaign/man that didn't want to win it?

It's a party. A big ass party. There will be I don't know how many hookers, but yes, hookers a plenty. People can get little nervous breakdowns there too. Could easily be the most intense experience ever for quite a few RP delegates. It's pretty intense when there's no real possibility of drama. The delegates, the people there, will be bumping into famous people all over the place. Every last tv pundit will be on the floor talking to everybody. So, yeah, it's kinda fun.

I recommend, if you want to avoid sensory overload and a nervous breakdown, eat food whenever you can. And sleep as much as you can. Very possible people will be running on pure adrenaline there at the end. It's worth doing. But others could think "danger - avoid".

[Bastiat's The Law]

Post count is irrelevant. And I don't see what someone not being an American has to do with their opinion on this website. Remember this?

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ly50170d13.jpg

The people in that pic aren't Americans either.
They also aren't on the forums trashing Ron Paul's son and the future of this movement. It's quite obvious to me that many people are fearful of the enormous impact we've had over the past few years and will stop at nothing to derail it. Their current M.O. is to trash Rand Paul, who is the future and create a wedge in an attempt to scatter this movement to the wind.

Divide and conquer is the method of Rand hating trolls.

[donnay]

Yeah, I do. I support a man who is our absolute best senator by leaps and bounds. Perhaps you should go look at what Rand has been doing in the Senate and how he has been helping reshape the GOP rather than base your support on some meaningless endorsement.


If it was so meaningless, then he should have declined to commit and waited until after the convention. It was the timing of his endorsement that I have been upset with. Not to mention, to give this exclusive endorsement on none other than Sean Hannity.

[Grindleader]

Personally, I am waiting to see what happens. I prefer not to assume pre-concluded motives or outcomes like the media has been doing. I will reserve judgement until after I see what actions actually occur, rather than what might occur.

[AuH20]

They also aren't on the forums trashing Ron Paul's son and the future of this movement. It's quite obvious to me that many people are fearful of the enormous impact we've had over the past few years and will stop at nothing to derail it. Their current M.O. is to trash Rand Paul, who is the future and create a wedge in an attempt to scatter this movement to the wind.

Divide and conquer is the method of Rand hating trolls.

There is a segment that hates that Rand is gaining traction. It started before he even won Kentucky. I advise they go back to their Libertarian clubhouse where they can brainstorm how they can break 1%.

[coffeewithchess]

"Rand will win over thousands of new converts because he's intelligent, funny, and charismatic."

Rand is intelligent? I haven't seen many smart political decisions by him honestly, other than running on his father's name/record to get elected. Rand Paul did nothing on his own that I'm aware of, to run for Senate other than use his father's name/record and resources. How much of it was actually Rand, not sure.

As for "intelligent" "funny" "charismatic" I don't get any of those from when I have heard him speak or be interviewed. I'm being serious. If you can't do the biggest endorsement you are doing in the 2012 campaign the right way, that doesn't show intelligence.
Funny? Charismatic? Am I missing something here? I seriously think there are going to be some people that are surprised when the "establishment" turns on Rand in 2015/2016, because they don't trust him and then what will his up "friendship" with the GOP have gained him? Absolutely nothing. It's exactly why Rick Santorum has more credibility from this campaign, than Ron Paul and company. Rick Santorum absolutely attacked Romney and was attacked back, but even after Rick Santorum said things like Mitt Romney is the same as Obama, he gets a speaking slot at the convention...yet some thought not attacking Romney would give RP a speaking slot. LOL.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I didn't know post counts were a reflection of one's qualifications, education, principle or integrity. If that is so, it seems you may be a qualified Loser that sits in front of a RP forum too much. I will be voting, yes. It's good to see peoples assumptions of this movement as an inward looking, inbred shower of flag waving morons is proving correct because I certainly cannot see any contradiction when it comes to foreign people on this site....do you take exception to this? If so, it seems Ron Paul is not your ideal candidate so...because this is a world movement, NOT an American movement.

And for the record, I'm sure you can come up with something a little less childish than "string bean"....lmfao.
You add nothing intellectually here.

[AuH20]

"Rand will win over thousands of new converts because he's intelligent, funny, and charismatic."

Rand is intelligent? I haven't seen many smart political decisions by him honestly, other than running on his father's name/record to get elected. Rand Paul did nothing on his own that I'm aware of, to run for Senate other than use his father's name/record and resources. How much of it was actually Rand, not sure.

As for "intelligent" "funny" "charismatic" I don't get any of those from when I have heard him speak or be interviewed. I'm being serious. If you can't do the biggest endorsement you are doing in the 2012 campaign the right way, that doesn't show intelligence.
Funny? Charismatic? Am I missing something here? I seriously think there are going to be some people that are surprised when the "establishment" turns on Rand in 2015/2016, because they don't trust him and then what will his up "friendship" with the GOP have gained him? Absolutely nothing. It's exactly why Rick Santorum has more credibility from this campaign, than Ron Paul and company. Rick Santorum absolutely attacked Romney and was attacked back, but even after Rick Santorum said things like Mitt Romney is the same as Obama, he gets a speaking slot at the convention...yet some thought not attacking Romney would give RP a speaking slot. LOL.

Trey Grayson would have comfortably beat Ron Paul by 10 to 15% points. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[Eire4RonPaul]

They also aren't on the forums trashing Ron Paul's son and the future of this movement. It's quite obvious to me that many people are fearful of the enormous impact we've had over the past few years and will stop at nothing to derail it. Their current M.O. is to trash Rand Paul, who is the future and create a wedge in an attempt to scatter this movement to the wind.

Divide and conquer is the method of Rand hating trolls.

If you think Rand Paul, who doesn't even agree with his father on a philosophical sense, is the future of this movement then we might as well call it a day right now.

Rand Paul is NOT the future of this movement.

[coffeewithchess]

Trey Grayson would have comfortably beat Ron Paul by 10 to 15% points. You have no idea what you are talking about.

So, Rand Paul didn't get elected because of his father's name/influence? Rand Paul was a nobody of a Senator, with no family connections to Washington D.C. and the politics? I must be thinking of another Rand Paul.

[NoOneButPaul]

Right? :o the presumption that anonymous forum posters know better is hilarious.

Dude don't you know where you're at? This is RPF! Where posters sitting miles from the action at their keyboards know more than Rand and Ron Paul...

[cajuncocoa]

They also aren't on the forums trashing Ron Paul's son and the future of this movement. It's quite obvious to me that many people are fearful of the enormous impact we've had over the past few years and will stop at nothing to derail it. Their current M.O. is to trash Rand Paul, who is the future and create a wedge in an attempt to scatter this movement to the wind.

Divide and conquer is the method of Rand hating trolls.That's nice if you're happy with Rand's actions over the past couple of months. Some of us aren't. I'm an American; I have almost double your post count, and have been here far longer than you. And I'm in complete agreement with what Eire4RonPaul had to say.

[cajuncocoa]

If you think Rand Paul, who doesn't even agree with his father on a philosophical sense, is the future of this movement then we might as well call it a day right now.

Rand Paul is NOT the future of this movement.If he is, we're screwed. And don't let the know-it-alls get you down. ;)

[AuH20]

So, Rand Paul didn't get elected because of his father's name/influence? Rand Paul was a nobody of a Senator, with no family connections to Washington D.C. and the politics? I must be thinking of another Rand Paul.

Ron laid the financial foundation so to speak, but Rand went out there and worked for every vote, despite being an extreme longshot at the beginning. He made a profound connection with the people of Kentucky.

[sailingaway]

There is a segment that hates that Rand is gaining traction. It started before he even won Kentucky. I advise they go back to their Libertarian clubhouse where they can brainstorm how they can break 1%.

You do know that Reuters had Ron over 20% nationally in second place in Feb, right? And Ron never even ran ads nationally. Had media reported that you would have seen a surge I am convinced. You saw the media with Rand in his election. Do you think they will help him more than they did Ron?

[NoOneButPaul]

If you think Rand Paul, who doesn't even agree with his father on a philosophical sense, is the future of this movement then we might as well call it a day right now.

Rand Paul is NOT the future of this movement.

This is the problem with you and all the people of your ilk, you make these dumb assumptions with absolutely NO evidence. You don't like the way Rand plays the game, or the fact he plays the game at all, so you paint him as a traitor.

Rand's not the future? Really? Please enlightening me on the army of Senators and Representatives who are better equipped to handle the cause for Liberty on the National Stage? Wait, no army? Is there even 1 other person? Anyone that can handle that heat?

[sailingaway]

Trey Grayson would have comfortably beat Ron Paul by 10 to 15% points. You have no idea what you are talking about.

in Kentucky maybe. A nationwide race is different. And would he have won without the support RON had excited across the nation?

Ron is the one whose brand of recruiting we will be losing, Rand will be there, for whatever that is worth, wonderful or not. It isn't going away. I do believe RON's campaign should be about Ron.

[Brett85]

If you think Rand Paul, who doesn't even agree with his father on a philosophical sense, is the future of this movement then we might as well call it a day right now.

That's ridiculous. Rand agrees with Ron on every single issue except for one, which is the Iran sanctions issue. That is an important issue, and an issue where I agree with Ron over Rand. But to say that Ron and Rand don't have the same basic philosophy is ridiculous.

[cajuncocoa]

There is a segment that hates that Rand is gaining traction. It started before he even won Kentucky. I advise they go back to their Libertarian clubhouse where they can brainstorm how they can break 1%.If selling one's soul is the only way to break through the 1% barrier, I'd rather continue to lose. At least I will still sleep well at night.

[parocks]

It's funny how so many Paulites think they are so indispensable to the GOP and to libertarian candidates, in this case Rand Paul, that by withdrawing their support they'll be able to change the world. When you withdrew your support from Romney and gave it all to Ron Paul, he didn't win the nomination remember? You can't complain about the GOP excluding you when all you do is attack them.

46 posts is bad. But basically there's a lot of right there, even though you aren't a Ron Paul supporter perhaps.

You should also mention that Libertarians are terrible voters and the Republicans said "FU" a long time ago to them. Because of the behavior of Libertarians in the past, the Republicans have figured out how to win without them. Republicans say "oh, so the Libertarians aren't going to vote for us under any circumstances. Again. What should we do to make them a little bit more happy? Nothing."

I talked to a fellow Ron Paul state convention delegate on Sat night, and I pointed out that Ron Paul supporters are not smarter than the supporters of other candidates. But stupider.

It just so happens that Ron Paul supporters happen to like the right candidate.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Excuse me, but I followed Rand's campaign and donated thousands to it. I am familiar with his communication and charm, and also know he has started to pepper it with red meat which, attractive to some, revolts others. I repeat, Rand will reach GOP primary voters better, however they have a huge stable to pick from in an election when they are only picking their favorite which resulted in the huge surges and clifflike drops in the polls of the 'non Ron Paul' and 'non Romney' candidates this election. Those voters are not loyal, necessarily, and they think many are 'good guys' which makes it easy for the establishment to steer them to another perceived good guy. And Rand doesn't reach the people Ron reaches. Rand will do what he will do, but this campaign is Ron's and it seems like Rand is getting the prize of it and it seems like Ron's leverage is being dissipated for Rand to get it. And we don't have another Ron to get the people he reaches. Rand will be here, later.
Actually Rand does reach the people Ron reaches and you're a perfect example of that by donating thousands to his campaign. I'm not sure why you're surprised at this, Rand was always going to be the future of this movement, whether Ron won or lost. Plus, Rand is a magnificent campaigner, he'd speak everywhere and often during his run for Senate. Ron was somewhat apathetic about it, which is understandable being 76 and how tedious travel is.

[Eire4RonPaul]

You add nothing intellectually here.

If I'm not adding anything, you can only imagine the absolute drivel coming from your mouth, ay "string bean"...?

[Bastiat's The Law]

Look, I agree, that is the way conventions should be, but that isn't how it's going to be this year. It just isn't. It'll never be that way ever again until and unless we get more (a LOT more) people involved in the GOP, specifically at the state conventions, and swing the elections of RNC Committeemen and Committeewomen. They make those decisions.

That level of involvement takes time. A lot of time. After my first 3 state conventions, I realized that what we're after here wasn't going to be accomplished within one or two election cycles. We're talking 10, 15, maybe 20 years here. And I know, I know, we don't have that long, the currency's gonna collapse, yada, yada, I get it. Whatever's going to happen with the financial system doesn't change basic human nature, and basic human nature is that radical new ideas take a lot of time to digest and internalize.

We can either accept that, put our heads down, work hard, and be patient, or we can get ulcers being pissed off about it.
I think it will happen much sooner than that. 2016 is our year my friend

[AuH20]

If selling one's soul is the only way to break through the 1% barrier, I'd rather continue to lose. At least I will still sleep well at night.

Selling one's soul is highly interpretative. Absolutism doesn't get you anywhere in this struggle. If the neoconservative intellectual cabal thought as you 40 years ago, they would have simply retreated to their spacious estates.

[sailingaway]

Actually Rand does reach the people Ron reaches and you're a perfect example of that by donating thousands to his campaign. I'm not sure why you're surprised at this, Rand was always going to be the future of this movement, whether Ron won or lost. Plus, Rand is a magnificent campaigner, he'd speak everywhere and often during his run for Senate. Ron was somewhat apathetic about it, which is understandable being 76 and how tedious travel is.

but I have soured considerably with his rhetoric to be honest and definitely with his endorsement while his dad was still running for delegates. I have no deadline to make a judgment about Rand today, and I refuse to. But I did support him many times when I had doubts because he was his father's son, and I trusted THAT.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Yes, they should. But, the cheating GOP establishment appears to have blocked that from happening. All the more reason why we have to keep replacing them.
Here, Here!! :D +Rep


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q3fdFJ4h0Q

[cajuncocoa]

Selling one's soul is highly interpretative. Absolutism doesn't get you anywhere in this struggle. If the neoconservative intellectual cabal thought as you 40 years ago, they would have simply retreated to their spacious estates.And that would be bad.....how?

[dskalkowski]

This is the problem with you and all the people of your ilk, you make these dumb assumptions with absolutely NO evidence. You don't like the way Rand plays the game, or the fact he plays the game at all, so you paint him as a traitor.

Rand's not the future? Really? Please enlightening me on the army of Senators and Representatives who are better equipped to handle the cause for Liberty on the National Stage? Wait, no army? Is there even 1 other person? Anyone that can handle that heat?

Thank you. Someone understands..

[AuH20]

And that would be bad.....how?

My point is that we must be as persistent and tireless as our enemies, gobbling up yards of ground anytime the opportunity presents itself.

[Eire4RonPaul]

This is the problem with you and all the people of your ilk, you make these dumb assumptions with absolutely NO evidence. You don't like the way Rand plays the game, or the fact he plays the game at all, so you paint him as a traitor.

Rand's not the future? Really? Please enlightening me on the army of Senators and Representatives who are better equipped to handle the cause for Liberty on the National Stage? Wait, no army? Is there even 1 other person? Anyone that can handle that heat?

Your first mistake was assuming I was painting Rand Paul as a traitor.

I'm sure Rand Paul is a great guy, with the utmost integrity. And I don't, unlike others on here - disrespect Rand Paul by calling his endorsement "silly", "means nothing" or "playing the game". I believe Rand intended to endorse Romney through and through, he's not a liar - he wouldn't do something for the sake of it and for that reason I respect him as a person. BUT what I am saying is that Rand Paul is not Ron Paul. Therefore, he is his own man and I don't see him as leading from the front because of several issues not least because; a) he doesn't agree with his father on many issues, and most importantly b) his father had an uncanny ability to draw support from all corners of the political spectrum which in turn garnered money to run a campaign/voters etc etc. By contrast, Rand Paul does not appeal to Libertarians; Rand Paul does not appeal to Anarcho's of every color, agorists, voluntaryists etc. He only appeals to Republicans and his support will be a non-issue because of this.

Remember, there are a lot of different people behind Ron - most of which could NEVER...get behind Rand.

[sailingaway]

My point is that we must be as persistent and tireless as our enemies, gobbling up yards of ground anytime the opportunity presents itself.

but not from eachother

I don't want to continue this. I've made my points.

[Brett85]

If selling one's soul is the only way to break through the 1% barrier, I'd rather continue to lose. At least I will still sleep well at night.

Not being 100% pure on every single issue is not "selling your soul."

[Kotin]

but I have soured considerably with his rhetoric to be honest and definitely with his endorsement while his dad was still running for delegates. I have no deadline to make a judgment about Rand today, and I refuse to. But I did support him many times when I had doubts because he was his father's son, and I trusted THAT.

do you really believe Rand was working against Ron?

they both knew Ron could not win after a certain point.. Ron was not after delegates for the purpose of winning the nomination at the point that Rand endorsed.

I wish people would let go of the idea that Ron can win or could win after SC.. its simply not reflective of reality.. Rand did what he had to so he doesnt get pigeon-holed. He is working with Ron not against him, and anyone that thinks different needs to take a closer look.

[Brett85]

he doesn't agree with his father on many issues.

You keep saying this without naming a single issue they disagree on.

[sailingaway]

do you really believe Rand was working against Ron?

they both knew Ron could not win after a certain point.. Ron was not after delegates for the purpose of winning the nomination at the point that Rand endorsed.

I wish people would let go of the idea that Ron can win or could win after SC.. its simply not reflective of reality.. Rand did what he had to so he doesnt get pigeon-holed. He is working with Ron not against him, and anyone that thinks different needs to take a closer look.
I wish people would let go of the idea that the nomination was the only thing people were fighting for as a win. Raising Ron's profile as a cap on his long career fighting for us, shining a light on his unique ability to speak to people of all parties across the nation and even the world after being nominated from the floor as the first non sanctioned candidate to do that since the equally non sanctioned Reagan got it in 1976 - those were all things we were, and are fighting for.

You know from traffic here what the endorsement did to enthusiasm, and Ron lost states by a very narrow margin of delegates in some places after that. It may not have been a result, but I think it was pretty predictable people widely would see that endorsement as declaring the end of the fight. That is only my opinion, but it is my opinion and I do think it is reflective of reality.

[Kotin]

I wish people would let go of the idea that the nomination was the only thing people were fighting for as a win. Raising Ron's profile as a cap on his long career fighting for us, shining a light on his unique ability to speak to people of all parties across the nation and even the world after being nominated from the floor as the first non sanctioned candidate to do that since the equally non sanctioned Reagan got it in 1976 - those were all things we were, and are fighting for.

none of those things are affected by what Rand did.

[AuH20]

Not being 100% pure on every single issue is not "selling your soul."

By my count Rand has already stood up against the Libyan incursion, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the TSA, along with Rubio's reckless "bring Georgia into NATO" amendment that was going to pass unanimously. I would say he's doing pretty damn well, but he's still a traitor for not possessing "principles."

[Bastiat's The Law]

No, I'm saying your countering my evidence of Ron's ability to speak to crowds with a fairly dismissive comment that he is old and cute pissed me off.
Ron Paul looking cute riding a bike was a rhetorical, aside comment. No response was expected or needed.

Ron Paul wanting to retire and spend time doing what he loves, namely, spending time with family and exercising by riding bike was my response to your "evidence". If you understood my previous comment you wouldn't feel the need to present photographic evidence of crowds. I never said Ron couldn't get a crowd; rather, I said he speaks to certain segments of the population and vast other segments tune out or are in the dark...especially those over 50+ and women (our two thinnest demographics).

^
That's through no fault of his own either. The masses that vote in elections are woefully ignorant and intellectually lazy.

[AuH20]

do you really believe Rand was working against Ron?

they both knew Ron could not win after a certain point.. Ron was not after delegates for the purpose of winning the nomination at the point that Rand endorsed.

I wish people would let go of the idea that Ron can win or could win after SC.. its simply not reflective of reality.. Rand did what he had to so he doesnt get pigeon-holed. He is working with Ron not against him, and anyone that thinks different needs to take a closer look.
Rand and Ron have been colluding on this, as if it wasn't blatantly obvious. Hell, they lived together in D.C. for a time. They know exactly what they are doing.

[sailingaway]

none of those things are affected by what Rand did.

You missed the part about losing states by a handful of delegate votes where not all turned up. In Texas the next day at the convention a delegate was actually tweeting #Idon'tcarewhatRanddoes as a hashtag.

[Kotin]

You missed the part about losing states by a handful of delegate votes where not all turned up.

I may be wrong, but I am almost 100% sure that no matter what, Romney never would have let that happen.

[cajuncocoa]

Not being 100% pure on every single issue is not "selling your soul."Sure. You could be 95% pure, or even 80% pure. And then, you could endorse Mitt Romney ON THE SEAN HANNITY SHOW while your Dad's grassroots supporters are still trying to get delegates for him and a speaking slot at the convention.

[sailingaway]

I may be wrong, but I am almost 100% sure that no matter what, Romney never would have let that happen.

where we had enough people there he wasn't able to stop us, yet, at least, he still is challenging in credentials. But challenging and disqualifying one state so there aren't 5 is easier in a PR sense than challenging and disqualifying several to keep there from not being 5.

[Brett85]

Sure. You could be 95% pure, or even 80% pure. And then, you could endorse Mitt Romney ON THE SEAN HANNITY SHOW while your Dad's grassroots supporters are still trying to get delegates for him and a speaking slot at the convention.

Ron sent out an email stating that it was statistically impossible for him to win the nomination. He made it clear that he had no chance to actually win the nomination, which was his way of giving Rand the freedom to go ahead and endorse Romney.

[sailingaway]

where we had enough people there he wasn't able to stop us, yet, at least, he still is challenging in credentials. But challenging and disqualifying one state so there aren't 5 is easier in a PR sense than challenging and disqualifying several to keep there from not being 5.

Look, I don't want to have an anti-Rand rant. I am responding to statements I disagree with.

I'm done, if no one else addresses my comments.

[Brett85]

And, it's just silly to be opposed to Rand because of one action he took, rather than because of his voting record. I still haven't heard a single person mention what they dislike about Rand's voting record.

[Brett85]

You keep saying this without naming a single issue they disagree on.

I'm still hearing crickets.

[Bastiat's The Law]

There is a segment that hates that Rand is gaining traction. It started before he even won Kentucky. I advise they go back to their Libertarian clubhouse where they can brainstorm how they can break 1%.
The funny thing is I consider myself a pretty staunch libertarian, but part of being libertarian is getting real life results and not burying your head in the sand. The fact of the matter is the Libertarian party has been a 40 year disappointment. Ron Paul's strategy of bringing in libertarians and libertarian ideals to the republican party was brilliant and working!! Extraordinary results in only 4 years! Step back and think about that, that seemed complete fantasy when Bush was President didn't it? Now if you're a Paul supporter in Iowa, Maine, Nevada, Minnesota, etc you won't be ostracized from the party; hell we ARE the party! :D

[cajuncocoa]

Ron sent out an email stating that it was statistically impossible for him to win the nomination. He made it clear that he had no chance to actually win the nomination, which was his way of giving Rand the freedom to go ahead and endorse Romney.And he did it on HANNITY. As if it's not bad enough that he did it all by itself.

[Brett85]

And he did it on HANNITY. As if it's not bad enough that he did it all by itself.

Yes, the Republican base loves Hannity. Rand wants to do what Ron never could do, which is win over rank and file Republican voters.

[cajuncocoa]

Yes, the Republican base loves Hannity. Rand wants to do what Ron never could do, which is win over rank and file Republican voters.He never will, unless he pretends to be something his supporters here say he's not.

[LibertyEagle]

"Rand will win over thousands of new converts because he's intelligent, funny, and charismatic."

Rand is intelligent? I haven't seen many smart political decisions by him honestly, other than running on his father's name/record to get elected. Rand Paul did nothing on his own that I'm aware of, to run for Senate other than use his father's name/record and resources. How much of it was actually Rand, not sure.

As for "intelligent" "funny" "charismatic" I don't get any of those from when I have heard him speak or be interviewed. I'm being serious. If you can't do the biggest endorsement you are doing in the 2012 campaign the right way, that doesn't show intelligence.
Funny? Charismatic? Am I missing something here? I seriously think there are going to be some people that are surprised when the "establishment" turns on Rand in 2015/2016, because they don't trust him and then what will his up "friendship" with the GOP have gained him? Absolutely nothing. It's exactly why Rick Santorum has more credibility from this campaign, than Ron Paul and company. Rick Santorum absolutely attacked Romney and was attacked back, but even after Rick Santorum said things like Mitt Romney is the same as Obama, he gets a speaking slot at the convention...yet some thought not attacking Romney would give RP a speaking slot. LOL.

So, what's your plan? Beat the rush and insult him now? You must not be watching his speeches and votes, because he is doing a fantastic job for liberty.

[Cody1]

So, what's your plan? Beat the rush and insult him now? You must not be watching his speeches and votes, because he is doing a fantastic job for liberty.


Lol that's the vibe I've been getting as well.

[LibertyEagle]

He never will, unless he pretends to be something his supporters here say he's not.

Yes, he can. He won over the Kentucky voters, didn't he? I have watched him explain some of the same concepts that Ron has tried to explain to everyday Republicans and watched them go wild with applause. When with Ron, they didn't understand and thought he was nuts.

[Bastiat's The Law]

"Rand will win over thousands of new converts because he's intelligent, funny, and charismatic."

Rand is intelligent? I haven't seen many smart political decisions by him honestly, other than running on his father's name/record to get elected. Rand Paul did nothing on his own that I'm aware of, to run for Senate other than use his father's name/record and resources. How much of it was actually Rand, not sure.

As for "intelligent" "funny" "charismatic" I don't get any of those from when I have heard him speak or be interviewed. I'm being serious. If you can't do the biggest endorsement you are doing in the 2012 campaign the right way, that doesn't show intelligence.
Funny? Charismatic? Am I missing something here? I seriously think there are going to be some people that are surprised when the "establishment" turns on Rand in 2015/2016, because they don't trust him and then what will his up "friendship" with the GOP have gained him? Absolutely nothing. It's exactly why Rick Santorum has more credibility from this campaign, than Ron Paul and company. Rick Santorum absolutely attacked Romney and was attacked back, but even after Rick Santorum said things like Mitt Romney is the same as Obama, he gets a speaking slot at the convention...yet some thought not attacking Romney would give RP a speaking slot. LOL.
Rand is a true intellectual like his father.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmFgeCun7sw


You truly are missing something. Look at how MSNBC poops their panties when confronted with a real conservative with substance and an intelligent cohesive philosophy of liberty. No can defend.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyCBUBPcalw

[cajuncocoa]

Yes, he can. He won over the Kentucky voters, didn't he? I have watched him explain some of the same concepts that Ron has tried to explain to everyday Republicans and watched them go wild with applause. When with Ron, they didn't understand and thought he was nuts. Yeah, and he did it with Sarah (Israel first!) Palin's endorsement...which was the first time I had a WTF? moment where Rand is concerned. I guess neocons are wondering the same thing about Rand that I am: is he with them, or is he with us?

[AuH20]

Yes, he can. He won over the Kentucky voters, didn't he? I have watched him explain some of the same concepts that Ron has tried to explain to everyday Republicans and watched them go wild with applause. When with Ron, they didn't understand and thought he was nuts.

Rand reminds me of a great football coach that can communicate to various players with different personalities, while Ron is pretty much tuned to one wavelength, like him or hate him.

[Brett85]

He never will, unless he pretends to be something his supporters here say he's not.

He's able to explain Ron's positions better than Ron ever could. The main problem Ron had was his messaging, not his actual positions.

[Bastiat's The Law]

That's nice if you're happy with Rand's actions over the past couple of months. Some of us aren't. I'm an American; I have almost double your post count, and have been here far longer than you. And I'm in complete agreement with what Eire4RonPaul had to say.
From your past posts you're not even involved with the Paul supporters in Louisiana, so why are you even speaking? You do nothing for this movement. The liberty movement marches on, step aside or be crushed.

[sailingaway]

He's able to explain Ron's positions better than Ron ever could. The main problem Ron had was his messaging, not his actual positions.

to some

to those who are saying Rand is better than Ron, I suggest you aren't going to get many converts from RON's own campaign forum that way.

[AuH20]

He's able to explain Ron's positions better than Ron ever could. The main problem Ron had was his messaging, not his actual positions.

Agreed. Ron Paul has fabulous, necessary ideas that are integral to the American experiment, but his articulation of these ideas were poor to say the least.

[Brett85]

to some

to those who are saying Rand is better than Ron, I suggest you aren't going to get many converts from RON's own campaign forum that way.

I said that Rand is better at explaining the issues than Ron. Would you really disagree with that?

[cajuncocoa]

From your past posts you're not even involved with the Paul supporters in Louisiana, so why are you even speaking? You do nothing for this movement. The liberty movement marches on, step aside or be crushed.
Who are you to suggest that I should stop speaking?

No, I'm not involved with people on the ground in Louisiana (no interest in getting involved with the GOP...how many times do I have to say it?) Nobody seemed to mind when I was making phone calls for, and donating money to, Ron Paul though.

If you are an example of the so-called liberty movement, I will gladly march alone.

[sailingaway]

I said that Rand is better at explaining the issues than Ron. Would you really disagree with that?

Yes.

I would only agree for a specific target audience. He does best with southern conservatives, imho.