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

To me though the real movement, or any movement for that matter is a consensus on strategy for achieving the objectives of the movement. The only real consensus the movement has on strategy is the "work inside the GOP" option. That to me is the substance of the movement, and from that angle Rand is not only part of the movement he is a pioneer.

I guess that is where the disagreement with me occurs. I don't think the "work inside the GOP" option as a viable one. It has served us great to this point but as a tool, the GOP has served it's coarse. Dr. Paul has gotten everything and all the awesome supporters he can from the GOP. It's time he use his capital/power/movement to give birth to a 3rd party. Sure a 3rd party has never been able to succeed in modern politics BUT modern politics has never had a candidate like Dr. Paul.

As for Rand Paul, if he continues to vote the way he does, I will definitely vote for him if he runs for potus in 2016. What I won't do is donate money or sign wave or Register Republican for my primary as I did for Dr. Paul. There is only 1 Ron Paul and he's the only one that can make me switch to GOP. Now that his career is coming to a close, I can't wait to "un-register" as a Republican.

My only regret is that I didn't "discover" Dr. Paul sooner, DAMN YOU MSM for hiding a great man from me!
 
Bottom line..if Rand got one person to vote for Romney with this endorsement he hurt our movement.

If Romney wins in 2012 we don't get a liberty candidate in 2016. If he wins we have to wait until 2020 or 2024 to run al iberty candidate. Anyone who says setting the movement back and extra 4-8 years in terms of Presidential runs is "helping us", "doing us a service", or "working within the Party" is either a sophist making an excuse because of some hero-worship nonsense, or they aren't very good at math.

Who gives a crap if he never gets a Bill to the floor for a vote? We need to run liberty candidates, and especially for the Presidency where the veto power lies, in 2016! This would force 2/3 majorities to pass anything unConstitutional! How do you guys not see this!?!
 
Last edited:
Bottom line..if Rand got one person to vote for Romney with this endorsement he hurt our movement.

If Romney wins in 2012 we don't get a liberty candidate in 2016. If he wins we have to wait until 2020 or 2024 to run al iberty candidate. Anyone who says setting the movement back and extra 4-8 years in terms of Presidential runs is "helping us", "doing us a service", or "working within the Party" is either a sophist making an excuse because of some hero-worship nonsense, or they aren't very good at math.

Who gives a crap if he never gets a Bill to the floor for a vote? We need to run liberty candidates, and especially for the Presidency where the veto power lies, in 2016! This would force 2/3 majorities to pass anything unConstitutional! How do you guys not see this!?!

I agree! If Mitt Romney is elected and is in charge when the country collapses, it's going to be hard to get a REPUBLICAN Rand Paul in 2020. This is the FLAW with running a candidate in either party, everyone is expected to "fall in line." I honestly doubt we will ever have another chance at a credible 3rd party if Dr. Paul doesn't split from the GOP and run 3rd party. How many times in our life time will we have a chance to build a real 3rd party?
 
Rand is a compromiser, Ron isn't, that's clear.
Rand you be Rand, and PLEASE you and those on Ron's campaign like you LET RON BE RON

I don't agree with Rand and Shiff that playing the I scratch you back if you'll scratch my back game in govt is the only option. Ron knows this and has taught us that ONLY a revolution will work.

I'd actually prefer we didn't completely blow up the government and start over from anarchy. I guess I just have more to lose.

Ron the presidential candidate was different than Ron the congressman. Even Ron the congressman didn't vote to get things passed or not passed, he often just voted to make a point.

Ron's tactics are very effective for starting a liberty movement and gaining a fund-raising base. They are completely ineffective for actually getting elected President of the United States as we've now seen in 3 different presidential campaigns.

Rand could be a serious nominee for President of the United States in 2016. Not a guy on the stage proving points and raising money and winning the internet and then not getting votes, but a front-runner who actually wins states, a lot of states. This could very well happen. And although publicly they have different tactics, privately they have very similar political philosophies.

Do you want Rand to have a shot at the whitehouse in 2016? If so let's please support him playing this political game. If you want the government to get completely blown up and deal with the months or years of anarchy that might follow (markets completely tanking, retirements totally wiped out, horrible unemployment far worse than what we already have) and seriously think that's the only answer, then I guess don't worry about.
 
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.

The thing is, this isn't about getting 10% (incrementalism) vs getting 100% (tearing down the entire system)... it is about getting 10% (incrementalism) vs getting 0-1% (what we get otherwise).
 
peter schiff in his interview with rand paul touched on quite a few important points about this all.
 
That was a really good and honest discussion. I hope everyone listens to what Rand had to say before they write him off. Breaks my heart to hear him sound so down though, You can tell it affected his heart when so many people burned him at the stake for doing something he truly feels was good for our causes.
 
I respect Rand a lot for pointing that there aren't just good and evil people, and I think that is something that really needed to be said. Very true.
 


Thanks for the video (I merged with main thread), but that particular youtube has such a silly title, apparently the uploader's main takeaway from the interview is that Rand said something nice about John McCain and his military service (how dare he). If anyone wants to share this interview, I would recommend the youtube version posted earlier in this thread. (edit: appears to be longer also)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygwZHpTUmaI
 
Last edited:
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.

Where could it go wrong?

Also, love that Rand brings up bills he's brought to the floor, which have done jack diddly squat to stop anything concerning the growth of government. And I love that he's using the Santorum defense of being a team player.

Incrementalism hasn't repealed the PATRIOT Act, and it also loses the moral high ground. It's the jackass of all trades, master of none.
 
Last edited:
Where could it go wrong?

Also, love that Rand brings up bills he's brought to the floor, which have done jack diddly squat to stop anything concerning the growth of government. And I love that he's using the Santorum defense of being a team player.

As opposed to all the success Ron had doing so with his bills right?
 
As opposed to all the success Ron had doing so with his bills right?

At least Ron can speak from the moral high ground and intellectually provide ammo to liberty lovers.

Besides, everybody knows Ron's approach isn't going to be successful legislatively - Fed audit notwithstanding. The argument is that Rand's approach will be more successful, and the proof so far is that it hasn't performed a damn bit different.
 
Last edited:
As much as I hate it..... Ron Paul didn't win ONE state. Not a single damn one. So maybe Rand's strategy will take us to the promise land? Hell, at least winning a state would be nice. As it stands John Stossel owes O'Reilly 10 grand.
 
Where could it go wrong?

Also, love that Rand brings up bills he's brought to the floor, which have done jack diddly squat to stop anything concerning the growth of government. And I love that he's using the Santorum defense of being a team player.

Incrementalism hasn't repealed the PATRIOT Act, and it also loses the moral high ground. It's the jackass of all trades, master of none.

Ron's bills haven't done diddly squat to slow the growth of government either. He never gets any of his bills passed.
 
Funny how there are supporters talking about ending their support at the exact time that we can actually change things. Some people never really wanted change. They just wanted to feel special. If the party starts changing, they just won't feel so special anymore.

+ one million!

You nailed it right there. Some people are happier complaining about "the injustice of it all" and reject any effort to improve it - at least if it looks like that effort might actually succeed. Fear of success is a real thing.
 
At least Ron can speak from the moral high ground and intellectually provide ammo to liberty lovers.

Besides, everybody knows Ron's approach isn't going to be successful legislatively - Fed audit notwithstanding. The argument is that Rand's approach will be more successful, and the proof so far is that it hasn't performed a damn bit different.

Suggest you review all that Rand has accomplished since going to the Senate. Here's just one example:

Rand Paul Single-Handedly Halts a Potential Future Military Confrontation with Russia

Last week, Senator Rand Paul single-handedly prevented the passage of an amendment that would have further eroded Americans’ constitutional rights, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012 (S.1867), amendment No. 1274.

This week he has stopped another amendment. This one would have significantly increased tensions with Russia and committed the United States to fight a war in Russia's backyard, if Russia attacked Georgia.

Senator Rand, as Brian Koening at The New American put it, "single-handedly thwarted an amendment proposed by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) drafted to advance Georgia’s application for NATO membership...Paul firmly opposed Rubio’s amendment, suggesting that expanding NATO in this sensitive region could entangle the United States in Georgia’s affairs with a nuclear-armed Russia, potentially risking a U.S.-Russian war."

Here's Pat Buchanan on what Rand did:

Last week, Sen. Marco Rubio, rising star of the Republican right, on everyone's short list for VP, called for a unanimous vote, without debate, on a resolution directing President Obama to accept Georgia's plan for membership in NATO at the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago.

Rubio was pushing to have the U.S. Senate pressure Obama into fast-tracking Georgia into NATO, making Tbilisi an ally the United States would be obligated by treaty to go to war to defend...

And for whose benefit is Rubio pushing to have his own countrymen committed to fight for a Georgia that, three years ago, started an unprovoked war with Russia? Who cooked up this scheme to involve Americans in future wars in the Caucasus that are none of our business?

The answer is unknown. What is known is the name of the senator who blocked it – Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, who alone stepped in and objected, defeating Rubio's effort to get a unanimous vote.

The resolution was pulled.

Here's Buchanan on the backstory:

In August 2008, as the world's leaders gathered in Beijing for the Olympic games, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, hot-headed and erratic, made his gamble for greatness.

It began with a stunning artillery barrage on Tskhinvali, capital of tiny South Ossetia, a province that had broken free of Tbilisi when Tbilisi broke free of Russia. As Ossetians and Russian peacekeepers fell under the Georgian guns, terrified Ossetians fled into Russia.

Saakashvili's blitzkrieg appeared to have triumphed.

Until, that is, Russian armor, on Vladimir Putin's orders, came thundering down the Roki Tunnel into Ossetia, sending Saakashvili's army reeling. The Georgians were driven out of Ossetia and expelled from a second province that had broken free of Tbilisi: Abkhazia.

The Russians then proceeded to bomb Tbilisi, capture Gori, birthplace of Josef Stalin, and bomb Georgian airfields rumored to be the forward bases for the Israelis in any pre-emptive strike on Iran.

The humiliation of Saakashvili was total and brought an enraged and frustrated John McCain running to the microphones.

"Today, we're all Georgians," bawled McCain.

Well, not exactly.

President Bush called Putin's response "disproportionate" and "brutal," but did nothing. Small nations that sucker-punch big powers do not get to dictate when the fisticuffs stop.

What made this war of interest to Americans, however, was that Bush had long sought to bring Georgia into NATO. Only the resistance of Old Europe had prevented it.

And had Georgia been a member of NATO when Saakashvili began his war, U.S. Marines and Special Forces might have been on the way to the Caucasus to confront Russian troops in a part of the world where there is no vital U.S. interest and never has been any U.S. strategic interest whatsoever.

A U.S war with Russia – over Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia – would have been an act of national criminal insanity.

Days later, there came another startling discovery.

McCain foreign-policy adviser Randy Scheunemann had been paid $290,000 by the Saakashvili regime, from January 2007 to March 2008, to get Georgia into NATO, and thus acquire a priceless U.S. war guarantee to fight on Georgia's side in any clash with Russia....

Now it is impossible to believe a senator [Rubio], not a year in office, dreamed this [amendment] up himself. Some foreign agent of Scheunemann's ilk had to have had a role in drafting it.

Bottom line: If it wasn't for Rand Paul to step forward and block the amendment, the United States, at the urging of likely dark forces, would have been obligated to fight Russia in its backyard.

Thank you, Rand Paul.
 
Where could it go wrong?

Also, love that Rand brings up bills he's brought to the floor, which have done jack diddly squat to stop anything concerning the growth of government. And I love that he's using the Santorum defense of being a team player.

Incrementalism hasn't repealed the PATRIOT Act, and it also loses the moral high ground. It's the jackass of all trades, master of none.

Not true. He stopped a provision of the NDAA that would have allowed a person found innocent of terrorism to still be indefinitely detained. That is something. Besides, he's a freshman senator in the minority party. Give him time. (I'm not directing this at you in particular since you've made it quite clear that you hate Rand and will never give him credit for anything.)
 
Back
Top