National Review (Robert Costa): Rand Paul's stock is rising

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Keep voting for sanctions?

You can be a purist, you are in the minority. You completely overlook everything else he has done.

 

[Aratus]

the 'surrogacy' in full happens after the delegate hammerlock in utah?

 

[Henry Rogue]

I don’t want Ron or Rand to be VP. VP as of late seems to be a career destroyer. VPs are powerless to affect pro liberty legislation. They get hammered for every gaff and are guilty by association to a failed presidency. What’s worse it would take a vote away from the Senate.

 

[ryanmkeisling]

and you don't see a problem with his crashing Ron's election year and getting a speaking slot by endorsing Romney while Ron is still in the race and his delegates are fighting to get him nominated from the floor? You know well part of Romney's reasoning would be the idea that he is buying support from Ron's supporters. So Rand would be taking a slot that otherwise would be one that might go to Ron?

I honestly see this as a loyalty issue here. Maybe it is the drama queen in me.

No it is the rational human being. The fact is Rand has buddied up to the neocons. They don't for a minute admire his campaign skills; they admire that he will partner with one of their own to advance the cause, so to speak. Ron has been relegated to the crazy old man, still giving his fire ball speeches, while they co-opt the movement and the message. It has been ongoing...

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Rand is a good attack dog against Obama or anybody that's in his cross-hairs. That why they want him on the trail.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

If Rand was the nominee I think he'd win in a landslide.

 

[Cowlesy]

and you don't see a problem with his crashing Ron's election year and getting a speaking slot by endorsing Romney while Ron is still in the race and his delegates are fighting to get him nominated from the floor? You know well part of Romney's reasoning would be the idea that he is buying support from Ron's supporters. So Rand would be taking a slot that otherwise would be one that might go to Ron?

I honestly see this as a loyalty issue here. Maybe it is the drama queen in me.

I hate to actually type this on the forum, but Ron has not had a chance to win the presidential nomination since the Iowa Caucus in January. There is no chance in hell, or a parallel universe hell, that the GOP is going to let him use parliamentary maneuvering, the court system, admiralty law or anything else to become the Republican Nominee for President. Not now, not ever. Not going to happen. I donated $1,000's of dollars like scores of others on here not really thinking he had a shot, but that it would fuel his ability to get the message out, and it has. He knows he wasn't going to actually win, and he's known that.

You won't see me put that in anyone else's thread on the forum, because I never want to discourage people even if I think they're headed down a doomed path. People need to learn. This is not a Philosophy debate. It's politics. Ron Paul's entire campaign was him preaching his philosophy. Rand does politics. He's constantly introducing bills, trying to build political-bridges with other (R)'s and even (D)'s to fix things, usually to no effect because Reid has the Senate.

So I guess the point of my tangent is, there is no loyalty issue here. I doubt Ron has thought he's had a shot since Iowa (perhaps New Hampshire), and I imagine he endorses Rand's attempt to practice politics, unlike Ron's practicing of philosophy. We need a seat at the table if Romney is victorious, instead of shunned outcasts who tried to stir up shit. If Obama wins, we are still in the Vanguard of the opposition.

Politics sucks. It's dirty. You end up having to compromise. While Ron is content advancing a few trenches forward picking up masses of new folks who agree with his philosophy, Rand is trying to take the trenches forward from Ron, by playing the game. So Rand votes for the sanctions, BUT also goes for amendment that insures it does not mean "war." That's politics. It's not betraying philosophy, it's maneuvering. And it's anathema to our forum's philosopher kings.

All the above really only applies to those of us who've committed to participating in the politics. The philosopher kings will rain their righteous indignation down upon our heads no matter what we do. *shrug*

 

[Agorism]

I actually thought we had a chance to at least make things I interesting post-Iowa but that was dependent on Santorum or Newt gumming thing up.

Could have won a lot more causes if it wasn't just Ron vs united GOP establishment

 

[schiffheadbaby]

My money is still split between Portman (to help in Ohio) and Ayotte (woman, articulate).

Portman actually seems halfway interesting (built his wife a chicken coop and keeps chickens in his backyard for fresh eggs).
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/15-genuinely-interesting-things-about-rob-portman

Do you also think it is "interesting" that Portman is a "budget genius" and of course worked with GWB to help create such a horrifiic debt?

Pretty interesting that Portman supports NDAA?

Yes, interesting man indeed

 

[Agorism]

Ron Paul never admitted defeat yet though right.

Only Rand Paul has so he endorsed the opponent instead.

 

[talkingpointes]

You can be a purist, you are in the minority. You completely overlook everything else he has done.

You could say the SAME of Ron, and look where we are at. Don't be blinded like smiegal thinking your chance of holding the ring is coming. At a glance it's pathetic.