Mitt Romney is honored to have the endorsement of Rand Paul

[Feeding the Abscess]

Your post is very misleading. You make it sound totally different than what it was. Rand said: I think Romney will not be a rash commander in chief and believes Congress should declare wars before starting them. That's completely different from "Romney is with us of foreign policy", which makes it sound like saying "Bomb Iran now!" is our position.

I'm sick of your sensationalistic bullshit, and this comes from somebody who supports Ron and wouldn't lift a finger to help Rand's future candidacy.

This is what people were pitching Ron Paul's foreign policy to be to GOP members.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Jesus Christ. It's called integrity.

Supporting the enemy is called treason.

 

[shishka]

It's unfortunate that it came to this point, but I think Rand is doing what is practical. He's shifting some of his support in the direction where his and his fathers beliefs can have the most and best chance for impact.

 

[Cardinal Red]

I know I'll be in a minority here, but I'm thrilled--seriously. It shows that Ron and Rand (and don't think even for 1/1000th of a second that Rand endorsed Mitt Romney against his father's wishes) are aiming to make themselves long-term powerful players for liberty in the political process rather than those who just whine from the outside.

Ron's 2008 campaign was a glorious disaster (to quote from the title of a book about Barry Goldwater's run). It ignited a liberty movement in the GOP against the full weight of the party establishment. My participation in that campaign was a very proud moment for me. In 2012, the campaign had a much better delegate strategy-- even though it ultimately didn't pan out because Romney eliminated all non-RP competition before the convention.

We are in a position to be major players in the future of the Republican party, moving it in a pro-freedom direction. That won't be accomplished in one election, and it won't be accomplished by refusing to endorse the GOP's nominee for President, even if most RP supporters don't care for him. Ron Paul was never going to be President-- that wasn't why he ran. By Rand's endorsement, he is proving that he is willing to be a part of the GOP team, and it ensures that he and the RP movement will have a major place at the table in a Romney administration. Or, if Romney loses, it establishes Rand as a major player in the 2016 campaign for President. If Rand doesn't endorse Romney, neither of those things are remotely possible.

There are times to fight-- and we did that plenty of times-- and there are also times to cooperate because that is the best strategy for advancing your goals. Right now, the Freedom movement is best served by cooperating with the GOP nominee-- and spending most of our energy electing Pro-liberty candidates down the ballot. We will have plenty of times to fight in the future-- but in politics just as in foreign affairs, perpetual war for the sake of perpetual peace is a losing strategy

 

[KevinYeaux]

I know I'll be in a minority here, but I'm thrilled--seriously. It shows that Ron and Rand (and don't think even for 1/1000th of a second that Rand endorsed Mitt Romney against his father's wishes) are aiming to make themselves long-term powerful players for liberty in the political process rather than those who just whine from the outside.

Ron's 2008 campaign was a glorious disaster (to quote from the title of a book about Barry Goldwater's run). It ignited a liberty movement in the GOP against the full weight of the party establishment. My participation in that campaign was a very proud moment for me. In 2012, the campaign had a much better delegate strategy-- even though it ultimately didn't pan out because Romney eliminated all non-RP competition before the convention.

We are in a position to be major players in the future of the Republican party, moving it in a pro-freedom direction. That won't be accomplished in one election, and it won't be accomplished by refusing to endorse the GOP's nominee for President, even if most RP supporters don't care for him. Ron Paul was never going to be President-- that wasn't why he ran. By Rand's endorsement, he is proving that he is willing to be a part of the GOP team, and it ensures that he and the RP movement will have a major place at the table in a Romney administration. Or, if Romney loses, it establishes Rand as a major player in the 2016 campaign for President. If Rand doesn't endorse Romney, neither of those things are remotely possible.

There are times to fight-- and we did that plenty of times-- and there are also times to cooperate because that is the best strategy for advancing your goals. Right now, the Freedom movement is best served by cooperating with the GOP nominee-- and spending most of our energy electing Pro-liberty candidates down the ballot. We will have plenty of times to fight in the future-- but in politics just as in foreign affairs, perpetual war for the sake of perpetual peace is a losing strategy

Glad to see sane, rational thinking.

 

[mac_hine]

Traitor

 

[anaconda]

I've lost respect for Rand. He obviously doesn't have his father's backbone.

I'm sure Rand is trusting us to realize that the "endorsement" was done with a wink and a nod to us. Please let the man take on the establishment without tying one hand behind his back. Please look at what Rand has done in the Senate. It's like no Senator before him. Not even close. Rand will be bashing on a Romney administration's every move for the next four years starting in January 2013. Except that Romney will probably lose so it won't even matter.

 

[matt0611]

I know I'll be in a minority here, but I'm thrilled--seriously. It shows that Ron and Rand (and don't think even for 1/1000th of a second that Rand endorsed Mitt Romney against his father's wishes) are aiming to make themselves long-term powerful players for liberty in the political process rather than those who just whine from the outside.

Ron's 2008 campaign was a glorious disaster (to quote from the title of a book about Barry Goldwater's run). It ignited a liberty movement in the GOP against the full weight of the party establishment. My participation in that campaign was a very proud moment for me. In 2012, the campaign had a much better delegate strategy-- even though it ultimately didn't pan out because Romney eliminated all non-RP competition before the convention.

We are in a position to be major players in the future of the Republican party, moving it in a pro-freedom direction. That won't be accomplished in one election, and it won't be accomplished by refusing to endorse the GOP's nominee for President, even if most RP supporters don't care for him. Ron Paul was never going to be President-- that wasn't why he ran. By Rand's endorsement, he is proving that he is willing to be a part of the GOP team, and it ensures that he and the RP movement will have a major place at the table in a Romney administration. Or, if Romney loses, it establishes Rand as a major player in the 2016 campaign for President. If Rand doesn't endorse Romney, neither of those things are remotely possible.

There are times to fight-- and we did that plenty of times-- and there are also times to cooperate because that is the best strategy for advancing your goals. Right now, the Freedom movement is best served by cooperating with the GOP nominee-- and spending most of our energy electing Pro-liberty candidates down the ballot. We will have plenty of times to fight in the future-- but in politics just as in foreign affairs, perpetual war for the sake of perpetual peace is a losing strategy

I'm with you.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'm sure Rand is trusting us to realize that the "endorsement" was done with a wink and a nod to us. Please let the man take on the establishment without tying one hand behind his back. Please look at what Rand has done in the Senate. It's like no Senator before him. Not even close.

Watch the endorsement. More than a wink and a nod.

 

[Carlybee]

Sold out. Sad day.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I know I'll be in a minority here, but I'm thrilled--seriously. It shows that Ron and Rand (and don't think even for 1/1000th of a second that Rand endorsed Mitt Romney against his father's wishes) are aiming to make themselves long-term powerful players for liberty in the political process rather than those who just whine from the outside.

Ron's 2008 campaign was a glorious disaster (to quote from the title of a book about Barry Goldwater's run). It ignited a liberty movement in the GOP against the full weight of the party establishment. My participation in that campaign was a very proud moment for me. In 2012, the campaign had a much better delegate strategy-- even though it ultimately didn't pan out because Romney eliminated all non-RP competition before the convention.

We are in a position to be major players in the future of the Republican party, moving it in a pro-freedom direction. That won't be accomplished in one election, and it won't be accomplished by refusing to endorse the GOP's nominee for President, even if most RP supporters don't care for him. Ron Paul was never going to be President-- that wasn't why he ran. By Rand's endorsement, he is proving that he is willing to be a part of the GOP team, and it ensures that he and the RP movement will have a major place at the table in a Romney administration. Or, if Romney loses, it establishes Rand as a major player in the 2016 campaign for President. If Rand doesn't endorse Romney, neither of those things are remotely possible.

There are times to fight-- and we did that plenty of times-- and there are also times to cooperate because that is the best strategy for advancing your goals. Right now, the Freedom movement is best served by cooperating with the GOP nominee-- and spending most of our energy electing Pro-liberty candidates down the ballot. We will have plenty of times to fight in the future-- but in politics just as in foreign affairs, perpetual war for the sake of perpetual peace is a losing strategy

Other things Rand Paul doesn't do without consulting his father:

Wipe his butt
Smoke weed and make fun of Christians while in college
Vote for sanctions against Iran

Do I need to continue?

 

[Cshelton21]

Our battle won't be won by placing all of our chips on just one number. We have to be tactical about everything. Don't think Rand a traitor just because he's attempting to preserve his own future. follow the flow and understand the idea and the art of war. not every battle will be won in a conventional manner.

Maybe we do take Romney down at the convention. It would be a huge pay off, sending shock waves though political history. But what if we don't? What if we fall short and can't make it happen? We do the next best thing, we alter the party as much as possible in favor of our platform. then what? we begin electing people we know support our platform into office.

The reason Rand Endorsed Romney wasn't to stab us in the back, or bring down / halt the revolution. The reason Rand Endorsed Romney is because he understands how to play the game. something we are just beginning to grasp. Rand endorsed Romney because it preserves his elect ability in the future REGARDLESS of the outcome of Tampa.

Had he done this a month sooner I too would cry foul. But I know better. I know what Rand stands for, and despite the fact that I wish he was more like his father, I know that someday he'll make a damn good president.

what happens in Tampa is all but set in stone now. that's why he waited this long to endorse him. Win or lose Rand will be on the winning team. if not now then in the next election cycle.

So tell me would you rather start all over and try and bash the party into submission like in 2008 or make the nationwide takeover worth the time and effort we've all sacrificed fixing the party this year? either way, Rand's actions ensure that he escapes the inevitable BLOWBACK that will be placed on Ron and us when we finally force the GOP back into its small government box.

 

[mac_hine]

I'm sure Rand is trusting us to realize that the "endorsement" was done with a wink and a nod to us. Please let the man take on the establishment without tying one hand behind his back. Please look at what Rand has done in the Senate. It's like no Senator before him. Not even close.

Just shut up, seriously. Enough of this bullshit that it's all part of some master plan. Rand "THE FUCKING TRAITOR" Paul just put a knife into the back of his father, along with all of his supporters. Romney is an authoritarian war mongering corporate fascist. Nobody who claims to be a defender of liberty should ever support him. Is this Rand's "take one for the team" Santorum moment?

 

[Britannia]

I don't know enough about Rand Paul to make a well informed judgement, if I'm honest. I just feel that sometimes these announcements are unnecessary. Why did the Ron Paul campaign have to announce he was ceasing active campaigning in the upcoming contests? Why did Rand Paul have to endorse Mitt Romney at all, is that what's expected of politicians, simply to jettison their principles for the sake of expediency and self-interest? I couldn't believe the number of conservative politicians (well, so-called conservatives) who had previously spoken against Mitt Romney who as soon as he was handed the title of presumptive nominee, began to sing his praises. I assume they do this to curry favour as soon as they realise their next job might depend on kissing his bottom.

I just wish that Ron Paul was 67 this coming birthday, this would have been his time. You know where you stand with Ron. He tells the truth and shames the devil. Maybe it will be Rand's time in 2016 and he is playing nicey-nicey to further the cause. Let's hope so!

 

[patriot2008]

I'm sure Rand is trusting us to realize that the "endorsement" was done with a wink and a nod to us. Please let the man take on the establishment without tying one hand behind his back. Please look at what Rand has done in the Senate. It's like no Senator before him. Not even close. Rand will be bashing on a Romney administration's every move for the next four years starting in January 2013. Except that Romney will probably lose so it won't even matter.

I agree. I like what Rand has done, spoke up for and fought against, and he's just begun. I still don't like Romney, but this is politics.

 

[subsidizing failure]

If you can't see what's going on here then I feel sorry for you. This is a good thing for the movement.

 

[cheapseats]

...Right now, the Freedom movement is best served by cooperating with the GOP nominee...

Stridently disagree.

...and spending most of our energy electing Pro-liberty candidates down the ballot.

I believe the marriage of ELECTING PRO-LIBERTY CANDIDATES and PLAYING NICE WITH THE GOP is textbook for both FALSE DICHOTOMY and ROPE A DOPE.

We will have plenty of times to fight in the future-- but in politics just as in foreign affairs, perpetual war for the sake of perpetual peace is a losing strategy

Precisely why joining them to beat them is an exercise in futility.

 

[Agorism]

Wait,

This means Ron Paul isn't even running right?

 

[Southerner]

I know I'll be in a minority here, but I'm thrilled--seriously. It shows that Ron and Rand (and don't think even for 1/1000th of a second that Rand endorsed Mitt Romney against his father's wishes) are aiming to make themselves long-term powerful players for liberty in the political process rather than those who just whine from the outside.

Ron's 2008 campaign was a glorious disaster (to quote from the title of a book about Barry Goldwater's run). It ignited a liberty movement in the GOP against the full weight of the party establishment. My participation in that campaign was a very proud moment for me. In 2012, the campaign had a much better delegate strategy-- even though it ultimately didn't pan out because Romney eliminated all non-RP competition before the convention.

We are in a position to be major players in the future of the Republican party, moving it in a pro-freedom direction. That won't be accomplished in one election, and it won't be accomplished by refusing to endorse the GOP's nominee for President, even if most RP supporters don't care for him. Ron Paul was never going to be President-- that wasn't why he ran. By Rand's endorsement, he is proving that he is willing to be a part of the GOP team, and it ensures that he and the RP movement will have a major place at the table in a Romney administration. Or, if Romney loses, it establishes Rand as a major player in the 2016 campaign for President. If Rand doesn't endorse Romney, neither of those things are remotely possible.

There are times to fight-- and we did that plenty of times-- and there are also times to cooperate because that is the best strategy for advancing your goals. Right now, the Freedom movement is best served by cooperating with the GOP nominee-- and spending most of our energy electing Pro-liberty candidates down the ballot. We will have plenty of times to fight in the future-- but in politics just as in foreign affairs, perpetual war for the sake of perpetual peace is a losing strategy

I agree 100%. America did not just wake up one day and find that it had become a socialist state with less than half of its citizens paying into the pot, and we aren't going to get what we want in one or even 20 elections. Barry Goldwater was the last man that talked even remotely like Ron Paul who ran for POTUS, he won the nomination then lost in a landslide to a liberal who delivered unto us the great society, medicare and medicaid. We are facing an election in November that could make or break us as a nation, and if you believe that there is no difference in ideology and action between Romney and Obama, you might as well believe that Ron Paul WILL magically win the nomination in August, choose Gary Johnson as his running mate, and win in a landslide in November. While I STILL have hopes for US to have some real input into the party platform, and perhaps even get Rand Or Jim DeMint as a VP, I will vote for the GOP nominee regardless. Not voting or voting Libertarian or 3rd party this year is just not an option, because If Barack Hussain Obama gets reelected... GOD HELP US ALL.

 

[misean]

It is totally the correct thing for Rand Paul to endorse Romney. And it shouldn't be surprising to anyone. He said he was going to endorse the nominee numerous times over the last year.

I'm certainly not voting for Romney, but there is nothing wrong with a Republican Senator who represents a set of free market principles supporting Romney. All change is going to happen within the two parties and that's the way it should be, unless you want Hitler some crazy union boss as president. Assimilating the liberty movement within the Republican party will be what moves the country back in the right direction. And to me Rand Paul bridges more gaps than anyone. He can appeal to so many people without compromising core principles.

Stridently disagree.



I believe the marriage of ELECTING PRO-LIBERTY CANDIDATES and PLAYING NICE WITH THE GOP is textbook for both FALSE DICHOTOMY and ROPE A DOPE.

Precisely why joining them to beat them is an exercise in futility.

For the rest of us who don't plan on sea steading your advice isn't going to have the desired effect.