[Audio] Rand Paul on The Peter Schiff Show talking about endorsement

[TheGrinch]

Yes, let's all endorse and campaign for someone that believes everything that is opposite my view of the role of government… just so we can have influence on the scribblings on a piece of paper the man endorsed will ultimately ignore.

Sounds smart to me, sign me up.

First off, Romney not following the platform his constituents lay out only provides more leverage to go against him later... Why do you think Romney even has a shot at beating Obama? Because he hasn't fulfilled his promises....

But obviously you didn't listen to the interview, because this also has to do with things unrelated to the president and really could mean much more to the economy: his bills he's trying to get passed to audit the fed and legalize industrial hemp. If he hadn't made the endorsement, then the door would have been closed on support for those very important measures to get this country headed in the right direction.

But whatever, haters gonna hate... If this interview doesn't help you to see the big picutre and who we're up against, nothing will...

 

[ohgodno]

But whatever, haters gonna hate... If this interview doesn't help you to see the big picutre and who we're up against, nothing will...

I see what Rand's "big picture" is… and you're right it won't change my mind. Because I don't agree with his vision.

He's not about tearing down the corrupt system… he's about incrementalism. Sure we can all say "he's fighting for the right things though" and make ourselves feel better, but that isn't changing ANYTHING. The way to get change is to pull the rug out… show that the emperor has no clothes… not point out how nicely they make his figure look.

His vision is exactly the "progress" he spoke about in the interview (a success in his eyes, a failure in reality) - bringing a bill to the floor to lose 10-90.

Compromising principles to get a bill to the floor is a losing battle. Sure he'll get us a vote for Audit the FED… and I'll email my corrupt Senators 100's of times, but that won't change anything.

Well… something will have changed I guess… the "leader" (as perceived - and we all know perception is reality in politics) of our movement will have been shown to sell out and play by the rules, to play into the ruling elites hands… to get the ability to maybe, somehow, hopefully get something passed.

That's not something I can get behind, if you are… then go for it. Haters (without principle) gonna hate.

 

[tsai3904]

He's not about tearing down the corrupt system… he's about incrementalism.

The problems are so bad you can't expect to change things on a dime. Even Ron Paul doesn't want to end the Fed in one day. Would you call that incrementalism? What about Ron's plan for entitlements? He doesn't want to end those in one day either. What about Ron submitting a three year balanced budget? Is that something we shouldn't get behind because it doesn't balance in one year?

 

[TheGrinch]

The problems are so bad you can't expect to change things on a dime. Even Ron Paul doesn't want to end the Fed in one day. Would you call that incrementalism? What about Ron's plan for entitlements? He doesn't want to end those in one day either. What about Ron submitting a three year balanced budget? Is that something we shouldn't get behind because it doesn't balance in one year?

Some people just don't understand the uphill battle we face... You either take the gains that you can get and work towards making them the majority views of the party, or you stay destined to be an irate minority that they shun to the side as "fake republicans"..

And this talk like it's abandoning principle to make a meaningless token endorsement so that you can gain support to fight for your principles like ending the fed, well, that's rather ironic.

To them it matters if you're "one of us". That doesn't matter to Rand one bit, if "us" can actually become us...

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Tube or it didn't happen...

 

[twomp]

He also brought up an interesting question.

He said he thinks the Chairmanship of each state Republican party must endorse/support the GOP nominee. Given that our supporters are the Chairmen of the Alaska GOP and Iowa GOP, what should we expect them to do? Resign from their positions or support the GOP nominee?

And if they don't? What happens? They get arrested? Maybe shot?

 

[ohgodno]

The problems are so bad you can't expect to change things on a dime. Even Ron Paul doesn't want to end the Fed in one day. Would you call that incrementalism? What about Ron's plan for entitlements? He doesn't want to end those in one day either. What about Ron submitting a three year balanced budget? Is that something we shouldn't get behind because it doesn't balance in one year?

Those actions have a guarantee of results though - what Rand is talking about is bringing a bill to a vote—this is what he compromised the perception of the liberty movement for… A bill on the floor is a lot different that getting it passed… no progress is made there. NONE. Nothing actually comes of it… other than some great YouTube vids I can listen to while at work of Rand speaking in favor of it.

While we're on the subject… watch how fast the oil, corn, logging, paper etc lobbies are in the Senate once they get even the faintest rumor of a Hemp bill coming to the floor - I'm sure that'll lose 10-90 also. But it will be a great step forward for liberty… to see a bill debated on the floor.

All the while Goldman Sachs rakes in the money and Jesse Benton laughs all the way to the bank consulting for Romney endorsed candidates. It's a win-win for everyone.

 

[kuckfeynes]

You guys are forgetting that if Romney gets into office with our help, every destructive decision he makes will be tied to us as well. The blood will be on all of our hands. Congressional votes against those decisions (if they even go to Congress) won't matter; public perception will be that the GOP is the same as it ever was, and all this great rhetoric from Goldwater to Paul will be just that... rhetoric. Goodbye independents, goodbye Democrats, back to the margin we go, game, set, match.

 

[tsai3904]

And if they don't? What happens? They get arrested? Maybe shot?

If the two options are (1) support the GOP nominee or (2) lose your position as Chairman of the State Party, what would you do?

 

[twomp]

If the two options are (1) support the GOP nominee or (2) lose your position as Chairman of the State Party, what would you do?

Last I heard, the Chairman was elected. I didn't know the RNC had the power to just fire/hire a Chairman of a State Party. What if there was a 3rd option? The 3rd option is you say nothing. What would you do? Since we are playing the "what if" game.

 

[TheGrinch]

NONE. Nothing actually comes of it… other than some great YouTube vids I can listen to while at work of Rand speaking in favor of it.

You clearly did not listen to the interview...

If he didn't make the endorsement, then the door would have closed completely for republican support... If he can now get some bipartisan support, it can actually happen... If he hadn't made the endorsement, the chances would have gone from not great to impossible.

Fine if you want to disagree, but the way some of you are treating him like scum without even realizing what he's trying to accomplish is completely short-sighted. He's fighting for our ideals the best way that he and his father know how to... Ron's seen with his own eyes how much steeper of a battle you face with 40 years of not playing the game at all... Ron worked to get us enough support for our ideals, but the time has come for someone who can actually work with the party to maybe get some things done, rather than just us bitching about getting done.

You speak of ripping the emperor's clothes off. I'm entirely curious how you propose to do that... It's really easy to be an internet tough guy and act like everyone is a sell-out, but our delegates also realize that you have to blend into the republican party, or they're going to push you out, and then you're guaranteed to accomplish nothing. I'll take slim chances to make gains over our current situation of no chance by refusing to even be civil with the party we're trying to take over.

You say principle over party, I say stakes over principle. I don't care how we have to do it, the stakes are too high to not try... You can remain ideologically pure as an outcast, while we try our best to save this country.

 

[twomp]

Btw any chance for a Tube on this? I would like to hear what he has to say. I am not a "Rand hater" nor am I a "Rand supporter". I just am against all this GOP "kissing the ring" stuff and I think the GOP has served its purpose and that DR. Paul should be the anchor of a 3rd party. Sure, he might not win but from what I hear, he aint going to win the Republican nomination either?

 

[ClydeCoulter]

the timing is what bothers me.
i wanted to see an actual VOTE at the convention, win or loose, i wanted to believe that somehow, somewhere our votes DO count.
what rand did confirms that our vote doesn't matter at all. he said it was over when we haven't gone to convention yet. this is admitting that bilderburg appoints our "president" not ANY of US.

got disenfranchisement?

write in RON

^^^ THIS ^^^ in case anyone thinks we are just whinning, we're not sore loosers and it's not that we won't play fair, we're tired of it being called before the end of the last quarter even by our own players !

 

[tsai3904]

Last I heard, the Chairman was elected. I didn't know the RNC had the power to just fire/hire a Chairman of a State Party. What if there was a 3rd option? The 3rd option is you say nothing. What would you do? Since we are playing the "what if" game.

Some bylaws might state that they must support the GOP nominee. If there was a 3rd option of say nothing, I would go with that option. Now your turn. If there were only those two options I mentioned, what would you do (for the third time)?

 

[TheGrinch]

You guys are forgetting that if Romney gets into office with our help, every destructive decision he makes will be tied to us as well. The blood will be on all of our hands. Congressional votes against those decisions (if they even go to Congress) won't matter; public perception will be that the GOP is the same as it ever was, and all this great rhetoric from Goldwater to Paul will be just that... rhetoric. Goodbye independents, goodbye Democrats, back to the margin we go, game, set, match.

Not true... It gives ammo for Rand later to fire back at him that he didn't fulfill his promises that the party laid forth in their platform... If we make the platform, and he doesn't follow it, then you can very easily put that all on him.

Why do you think Romney even has a shot against Obama? Because he hasn't fulfilled his promises.... No one is placing blame on the Democrats that Obama hasn't lived up to his "hope and change" rhetoric. If they didn't hate republicans so much in an election year, Obama's support would be continuing to drop like it has.

 

[wizardwatson]

Tube or it didn't happen...

Yeah, who has a link. After reading this thread I want to know what and how Rand said whatever he said in this interview. I've actually pretty much come to the conclusion that Rand made the right strategically.

What I've come to the conclusion about is that there is a difference in what is strategically good for liberty and what is good for people's conception of the "movement". I think a lot of us and me to some extent have been idolizing the movement and then faulting Rand for betraying it.

But outside of our conceptions of the "movement" there's the inescapable fact that the movement has no real strategy for continuing beyond Ron outside of this Trojan horse strategy. So we either jump on that wagon or be content to be wandering individualists and try to build something up from nothing.

This has become more clear to me since Rand's endorsement.

We can still build broad support for the movement outside of the Trojan horse scenario and I don't think people are really getting that. The Trojan horse is the spearhead.

 

[TheGrinch]

^^^ THIS ^^^ in case anyone thinks we are just whinning, we're not sore loosers and it's not that we won't play fair, we're tired of it being called before the end of the last quarter even by our own players !

Both Ron and Rand have made it clear that the nomination is over, because we don't have the numbers... They know approximately how many we have, even stealth ones, and it's only about 1/2 of what we need (and that's assuming that somehow it even gets to second ballot. If Romney has 1144 like it looks like it's going to, then it really is over)

So rather than people fighting in Tampa for something that's not going to happen, they're going ahead and telling people to realize what to expect with the likelihood that the nomination is over, and to fight for the platform, rather than causing a huge damaging ruckus for nothing.

Listen to the interview. You probably won't like what you hear about the nomination being over, but it really is over. We fell short, and that shouldn't have been unexpected. This has always been an uphill battle, but we will continue to fight to bring our ideals and politicians to take over the party.

 

[ShowMeLiberty]

Yeah, who has a link. After reading this thread I want to know what and how Rand said whatever he said in this interview. I've actually pretty much come to the conclusion that Rand made the right strategically.

What I've come to the conclusion about is that there is a difference in what is strategically good for liberty and what is good for people's conception of the "movement". I think a lot of us and me to some extent have been idolizing the movement and then faulting Rand for betraying it.

But outside of our conceptions of the "movement" there's the inescapable fact that the movement has no real strategy for continuing beyond Ron outside of this Trojan horse strategy. So we either jump on that wagon or be content to be wandering individualists and try to build something up from nothing.

This has become more clear to me since Rand's endorsement.

We can still build broad support for the movement outside of the Trojan horse scenario and I don't think people are really getting that. The Trojan horse is the spearhead.

Exactly. As I said before, we can never really win if we are forever a mistrusted minority.

Rand did us a huge service, even though he surely knew many might not understand it. It takes a rare kind of courage to do such a thing. My respect for Ron and Rand has increased tremendously because of it.

 

[ohgodno]

You clearly did not listen to the interview...

You speak of ripping the emperor's clothes off. I'm entirely curious how you propose to do that... It's really easy to be an internet tough guy and act like everyone is a sell-out, but our delegates also realize that you have to blend into the republican party, or they're going to push you out, and then you're guaranteed to accomplish nothing. I'll take slim chances to make gains over our current situation of no chance by refusing to even be civil with the party we're trying to take over.

I did, in fact, listen to the interview, and I implore you to not insult me any further with this remark. We simply have a disagreement on the tactics Rand is employing…

On to ripping the emperors clothes off…

I say we keep doing what we are doing… take over the party apparatus from the local level.

There is no need to "blend in" if we are the party. Then, all we need to do is be truthful. That's a dirty word in politics, but THAT is how you tear the clothes off — TRUTH.

We love to use the following quote: "Truth is treason in the empire of lies." Why don't we life by it - rather than bedding with the liars and cheats in hopes of getting what we want. I'll tell you this - I bet Rand gets lied to and cheated out of what we want: our liberty back.

With that said - I've said all I can on this…

 

[ShowMeLiberty]

You clearly did not listen to the interview...

If he didn't make the endorsement, then the door would have closed completely for republican support... If he can now get some bipartisan support, it can actually happen... If he hadn't made the endorsement, the chances would have gone from not great to impossible.

Fine if you want to disagree, but the way some of you are treating him like scum without even realizing what he's trying to accomplish is completely short-sighted. He's fighting for our ideals the best way that he and his father know how to... Ron's seen with his own eyes how much steeper of a battle you face with 40 years of not playing the game at all... Ron worked to get us enough support for our ideals, but the time has come for someone who can actually work with the party to maybe get some things done, rather than just us bitching about getting done.

You speak of ripping the emperor's clothes off. I'm entirely curious how you propose to do that... It's really easy to be an internet tough guy and act like everyone is a sell-out, but our delegates also realize that you have to blend into the republican party, or they're going to push you out, and then you're guaranteed to accomplish nothing. I'll take slim chances to make gains over our current situation of no chance by refusing to even be civil with the party we're trying to take over.

You say principle over party, I say stakes over principle. I don't care how we have to do it, the stakes are too high to not try... You can remain ideologically pure as an outcast, while we try our best to save this country.

*applause*

I'm beginning to see that some people are looking more for a god or gandalf type figure rather than an actual political leader. But here in the real world, the rest of us are realizing that political involvement means getting some dirt on you from time to time.