Rand Paul Will Not Endorse Another Candidate in Primaries, His Staff Says

[jct74]

Rand Paul Will Not Endorse Another Candidate in Primaries, His Staff Says
He will, though, endorse the eventual GOP nominee. Which may be symbolic of why he didn't seem to catch all the Ron Paul fire. Trump, Bernie, ISIS also might bear some of the blame.

Brian Doherty
Feb. 3, 2016 12:13 pm

While Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has dropped out of the Republican presidential race, he will not be endorsing any other particular candidate as the primaries crawl on, said Paul's campaign strategist Doug Stafford in a telephone press conference with Paul's top campaign staff this morning.

Paul does, though, intend to endorse whoever the Republican Party eventually settles on.

That's something his father Ron didn't do, and to at least a small extent that difference in political styles and attitudes may have kept big portions of Ron's support from surrounding Rand, in either giving or polling. I asked Stafford what the Rand campaign thought might have gone wrong with sustaining the perceived "Ron Paul movement."

Stafford was sure that the "Ron Paul movement does exist" but couldn't say precisely why Rand didn't seem to fully re-ignite it. "Voters shift from time time and what's most important to them is hard to capture" but he did see that there were many hundreds of kids still volunteering eagerly for Rand.

Most importantly, Stafford is sure that the issues Rand brought to the fore are still those that should energize anyone who was really into the Ron Paul thing. While "there are many issues that decide how people are going to vote, some within a candidate's control and some not" he reiterated what Rand has said: that the liberty movement is "definitely alive, marching on, and Rand will continue to be its voice in the Senate."

...

read more:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/03/rand-paul-will-not-endorse-another-candi

[thatpeculiarcat]

That's great to hear! Except for the nominating the eventual nominee part.

[Joeinmo]

read more:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/03/rand-paul-will-not-endorse-another-candi

'Intends'
intersting word, does not say he will for sure.


meanwhile at the Jim Webb Independent for President Facebook page lots of Rand fans pushing for a Webb/Paul ticket

I was kind of shocked

https://www.facebook.com/IHeardMyCountryCalling/

[Theocrat]

That's great to hear! Except for the nominating the eventual nominee part.

Yeah, I have a problem with that, too. Why would Sen. Paul endorse the eventual nominee, if all of the potential nominees left contradict his exclusive fiscal conservative views and noninterventionist foreign policy?

[CPUd]

Yeah, I have a problem with that, too. Why would Sen. Paul endorse the eventual nominee, if all of the potential nominees left contradict his exclusive fiscal conservative views and noninterventionist foreign policy?

Because he promised he would.

[nikcers]

Yeah, I have a problem with that, too. Why would Sen. Paul endorse the eventual nominee, if all of the potential nominees left contradict his exclusive fiscal conservative views and noninterventionist foreign policy?

So they can't claim his 2012 endorsement of the nominee was for political game instead of playing by the unwritten party rules.

[Crashland]

Endorsement of a candidate does not mean you support them on everything. It is a token measure you have to go through the motion if you want the party to not relegate you to a powerless position on an unimportant Senate committee, and to not prevent all of your legislative efforts from coming to a vote. If an endorsement alone is enough to sway your vote then you have your own issues, and if it doesn't sway your vote and you think for yourself, then why does it matter?

[Theocrat]

Endorsement of a candidate does not mean you support them on everything. It is a token measure you have to go through the motion if you want the party to not relegate you to a powerless position on an unimportant Senate committee, and to not prevent all of your legislative efforts from coming to a vote. If an endorsement alone is enough to sway your vote then you have your own issues, and if it doesn't sway your vote and you think for yourself, then why does it matter?

I understand the "politics" behind the endorsement, but what I'm concerned about is the image it displays about Sen. Paul, since he has gone after all of the potential nominees as being weak on balance budgets as well as their bloodthirsty eagerness to send "our sons and daughters" to die for regime changes in the Middle East. It's just a blatant inconsistency on Sen. Paul's part.

[Crashland]

I understand the "politics" behind the endorsement, but what I'm concerned about is the image it displays about Sen. Paul, since he has gone after all of the potential nominees as being weak on balance budgets as well as their bloodthirsty eagerness to send "our sons and daughters" to die for regime changes in the Middle East. It's just a blatant inconsistency on Sen. Paul's part.

If people are fooled by the image of a meaningless endorsement instead of looking at the policies the senator stands for on the senate floor and on the campaign trail, that's on them.

[CPUd]

Ron has endorsed some stinkers in his day, too. He understands the game.

[CPUd]

I kinda wish they waited a few days to release this statement though. It is amusing watching the press give him all this attention because they want to see who he will endorse.

[Anti Federalist]

Because he promised he would.

Don't make promises you should not keep.

[liveandletlive]

unless its Trump. do not endorse Trump.

[Mike4Freedom]

Ron has endorsed some stinkers in his day, too. He understands the game.

Yeah, Ted Cruz, :(

[messana]

Ron has endorsed some stinkers in his day, too. He understands the game.

Then why did he endorse Chuck Baldwin over McCain in 2008 and not Romney in 2012?

[TheTexan]

Remember he still has a senate seat to win.

A very important position indeed.

[nikcers]

Remember he still has a senate seat to win.

So 2-4x a year he can make a grand speech in the Senate about voting or not voting for this or that.

Ted Cruz likes to take credit but I didn't even know who Rand Paul was, or that Obama wanted to bomb Assad until Rand made headlines for protesting it.

[Wilf]

Remember he still has a senate seat to win.

So 2-4x a year he can make a grand speech in the Senate about voting or not voting for this or that.
Of course but you whould be happy if he lost his senate seat and died in a car crash.

[Cabal]

Don't make promises you should not keep.

Ding, ding, ding

[LibertyEagle]

I understand the "politics" behind the endorsement, but what I'm concerned about is the image it displays about Sen. Paul, since he has gone after all of the potential nominees as being weak on balance budgets as well as their bloodthirsty eagerness to send "our sons and daughters" to die for regime changes in the Middle East. It's just a blatant inconsistency on Sen. Paul's part.

Ron did it too.

[LibertyEagle]

Don't make promises you should not keep.

Then he cannot do what he is doing from the Republican Party. Because endorsing the nominee is an unwritten rule.

I'm sure you're saying, fine, leave the Republican Party. Ok, then he would give up sitting on the committees he is on and losing 99% of the influence he now has. Which would be dumber than dirt.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Very smart. If he had endorsed Cruz, I would have been incredibly steamed and so would have many of the grassroots folks I know.

[r3volution 3.0]

It's crucial that Rand not only not endorse any of these monkeys during the primary...

...it's CRUCIAL that he not endorse Trump, if he's the winner.

We need to think about Senate & White House relations for the next 4 to 8 years.

If Rand endorses Trump...that is the one and only thing which will cause me to stop supporting Rand.

He MUST not do that.

SOMEONE has to be in a position to resist that fucktard's administration.

...I'm about 95% certain Clinton will beat him, mind you, but just in case.

[Dianne]

Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh, Rand needs to grab a set of balls for goodness sakes !! Just like the author said, Rand will not endorse another candidate until he becomes the republican nominee; something his father Ron would have never done.

Rand.... go grow some son !!! WTF?

[dillo]

Not endorsing a candidate 10 years ago was dangerous, however with the current anti-establishment mood, it seems like a middle finger to the RNC could play well.

[CPUd]

Then why did he endorse Chuck Baldwin over McCain in 2008 and not Romney in 2012?

I'm sure he has answered that question a few times since then.

[William Tell]

Don't make promises you should not keep.

Agreed 100%. But his dad made bad promises.

[idiom]

He is better off throwing his weight into a few congressional and state races.

[PRB]

Yeah, I have a problem with that, too. Why would Sen. Paul endorse the eventual nominee, if all of the potential nominees left contradict his exclusive fiscal conservative views and noninterventionist foreign policy?

Because he's not a his dad, therefore he believes in lesser of 2 evils.

[PRB]

Not endorsing a candidate 10 years ago was dangerous, however with the current anti-establishment mood, it seems like a middle finger to the RNC could play well.

The RNC couldn't care less what he says, or else he'd not be so low in polls.

[PRB]

Then he cannot do what he is doing from the Republican Party. Because endorsing the nominee is an unwritten rule.

I'm sure you're saying, fine, leave the Republican Party. Ok, then he would give up sitting on the committees he is on and losing 99% of the influence he now has. Which would be dumber than dirt.


That's exactly what it is, an unwritten rule, too early to tell now anyway.

[jkob]

Doesn't make any sense for Rand to endorse anybody besides the nominee when he's running for reelection

[Anti Federalist]

Then he cannot do what he is doing from the Republican Party. Because endorsing the nominee is an unwritten rule.

I'm sure you're saying, fine, leave the Republican Party. Ok, then he would give up sitting on the committees he is on and losing 99% of the influence he now has. Which would be dumber than dirt.

Nobody, in or out of politics, would have had the guts to call him out for endorsing his own father over everybody else.

Nobody.

[Anti Federalist]

Where did Fish's comment go?

[randomname]

Source: htt p://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/why-rand-paul-lost

[jmdrake]

Well yeah. I can't believe some folks think he'd be endorsing anyone in the primary.

[Valli6]

Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh, Rand needs to grab a set of balls for goodness sakes !! Just like the author said, Rand will not endorse another candidate until he becomes the republican nominee; something his father Ron would have never done.
Rand.... go grow some son !!! WTF?
Ron was retiring when he refused to endorse Romney. All it meant was that the RNC refused to allow him to attend the national convention and he was not allowed to make a speech there. (I believe normally every republican primary candidate is automatically invited and permitted to make a speech) If Rand wants to make a speech at the convention he will agree to "endorse" whoever the nominee is. Even then, his speech will be subject to the approval of Republican leadership - as it was when Romney ran.

Realize that Ron Paul's uncompromising stance got him blackballed from playing many important roles throughout his time in the house and this severely limited the impact he could have on affecting policy. There were three (?) times when Ron's seniority meant he should become the head of his committee which dealt with (I believe) monetary policy. Each time he was simply passed over. One time it happened, they chose to abolish that particular committee entirely, just to prevent him from wielding the power he had clearly earned.

In some video I remember Ron stating essentially that just by being a member of the Republican party, you are agreeing to "endorse" whoever they have running in any given race, and that you shouldn't read too much into such endorsements.

[CPUd]

They wanted Ron to endorse Romney, then they would let him give a speech that the RNC had final say on.

[Warlord]

Ron would never bend and endorse Romney, Rand did and will do the same in 2016 because he's playing the game

[P3ter_Griffin]

I think Rand will be safe from contempt from the GOP if Trump is the nominee and Rand chooses not to endorse him. If he cares about contempt from the GOP and it's anyone not named Trump I imagine he'd endorse.