Rand Paul Endorsement of Mitt Romney Proves He's a True Libertarian Leader

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.policymic.com/articles/9...-a-true-libertarian-leader-not-ron-paul-enemy

 

[Sola_Fide]

If anything, this partially answers the question people are having with the timing of the endorsement.

 

[Yieu]

How I read the title: Rand Paul Endorsement of Mitt Romney Proves Mitt Romney is a True Libertarian Leader

Which sounded like amusing sarcasm.

 

[Bman]

Didn't you know AnCaps are about destroying the machine, to hell with anyone trying to work in it...

Except Ron for helping AnCaps collect frn's from suckers in the movement. You don't attack God in front of his congregation.

 

[July]

He endorsed on the last conservative national show the Thursday night before his state's convention.

Oh, Rand.

I agree, it did show leadership, maybe not in the way some would have hoped. But he followed through on his promises to support the nominee. Showed he can handle the messy and difficult decisions, even if unpopular.

Also thought Ron's speech was particularly good in Texas--one of the very best of his career. It really should have buffered out any negativity from Rand's endorsement. Ron knows we are heading for some uncertain times. I watched the speech after watching Rand first, and it was very inspirational. Listen carefully about what Ron says in that speech.

 

[whippoorwill]

Yea Rand endorced Mr. National I.D. Cards, Wants to double the size of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, Thinks that cutting Federal Government spending by one Trillion dollars takes money out of the economy, Thinks its ok to force people at the state level to buy government approved health insurance, Torture, suppressing assault weapon ownership, indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, assassinating U.S. citizens, Bombing Iran without a declaration of war from Congress, Economic Protectionism, Forcing producers of computers to add a porn filter, The Feds "independence", Bank bailouts, building walls at our Mexican Border and much more.

 

[July]

@whippoorwill, endorsements don't necessarily mean you support absolutely everything a candidate does or believes in. In reality endorsements are used more like political capital. Remember when Rand endorsed Massie. Rand probably really did support Massie wholly on principle in this case, but politically speaking, what Rand was doing was putting his political capital and weight behind him. This is why Massie's win was also a win for Rand and increased his political power. It proved his endorsement had weight behind it, enough to get others elected, and would have been a blow to Rand if Massie had lost. If you noticed after Massie's win, hit pieces in the media started rolling in on Rand too...and this is why.

And yea, it is kind of a sham that endorsements are used this way, but that's the reality of it. Politics is about power brokering. That's what Rand did-- he power brokered. Invested his own political capital in Romney, expecting a return in his own political stature...which he can then later use in investments of his own choosing. Like, I don't know, investing in the next Massie, or whoever.

 

[fearthereaperx]

Yea Rand endorced Mr. National I.D. Cards, Wants to double the size of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, Thinks that cutting Federal Government spending by one Trillion dollars takes money out of the economy, Thinks its ok to force people at the state level to buy government approved health insurance, Torture, suppressing assault weapon ownership, indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, assassinating U.S. citizens, Bombing Iran without a declaration of war from Congress, Economic Protectionism, Forcing producers of computers to add a porn filter, The Feds "independence", Bank bailouts, building walls at our Mexican Border and much more.

He would've endorsed anyone who was the Republican nominee

 

[UtahApocalypse]

He would've endorsed anyone who was the Republican nominee

Did I miss the convention?


Regardless of if Mitt Romney will become the nominee..... he is NOT the nominee at this point.

 

[whippoorwill]

@whippoorwill, endorsements don't necessarily mean you support absolutely everything a candidate does or believes in. In reality endorsements are used more like political capital. Remember when Rand endorsed Massie. Rand probably really did support Massie wholly on principle in this case, but politically speaking, what Rand was doing was putting his political capital and weight behind him. This is why Massie's win was also a win for Rand and increased his political power. It proved his endorsement had weight behind it, enough to get others elected, and would have been a blow to Rand if Massie had lost. If you noticed after Massie's win, hit pieces in the media started rolling in on Rand too...and this is why.

And yea, it is kind of a sham that endorsements are used this way, but that's the reality of it. Politics is about power brokering. That's what Rand did-- he power brokered. Invested his own political capital in Romney, expecting a return in his own political stature...which he can then later use in investments of his own choosing. Like, I don't know, investing in the next Massie, or whoever.

Ron didn't endorce McCain! Why? Principal! And to this point "don't necessarily mean you support absolutely everything a candidate does or believes in".....There is absolutely nothing he believes in that I can agree with.

 

[July]

Remember that you are an individual and should vote your conscience, as you see fit, no matter who endorses who or for what reason. You are not tied down or chained to anybody's endorsement. The system can't 'deliver' your vote because they don't own you. Free your mind of the very idea.

 

[Chrysamere]

Ron didn't endorce McCain! Why? Principal! And to this point "don't necessarily mean you support absolutely everything a candidate does or believes in".....There is absolutely nothing he believes in that I can agree with.

And this is exactly why Ron has been powerless in Washington for the last 30 years, it may have created this movement, but this movement has been just as powerless, we haven't made any change really.

We've only gained some leverage since we decided to retake the GOP. I despise the GOP more than any other organisation on this planet, and it certainly goes against my principles to even associate with them in the slightest, but it is a means to an end.

So long as Rand and Ron vote with principle, I don't give a damn what tactics they use to make a real change.

 

[whippoorwill]

And this is exactly why Ron has been powerless in Washington for the last 30 years,..we haven't made any change really.

We got a Fed Audit! The first time in its history. We have taken over the Maine and Nevada State GOP...with more to come. Because of Principal.

 

[Chrysamere]

We got a Fed Audit! The first time in its history. We have taken over the Maine and Nevada State GOP...with more to come. Becasue of Principal.

Fed audit? good job! We already knew we were fucked, we managed to find out a bit more about just how fucked we are!

And joining with the GOP is compromising, it has nothing to do with principle.

 

[July]

We got a Fed Audit! The first time in its history. We have taken over the Maine and Nevada State GOP...with more to come. Because of Principal.

Yes, but we are compromising even by being in the GOP in the first place. It's a corrupted system. But you've got to start somewhere. I think what people aren't realizing is that we are really only at beginning of this movement, as it is really only just started to gain steam, in terms of real mainstream success. Ron Paul is responsible for that--he has managed to lift the whole vehicle off the ground, and now people like Rand can go in and start really moving things. I think that's what Ron meant about the "egg needing to hatch or it will rot" in his Texas speech.

 

[torchbearer]

Did I miss the convention?


Regardless of if Mitt Romney will become the nominee..... he is NOT the nominee at this point.

depends on Ron's willingness to be nominated at the rnc.
with no challengers left, a person can claim the prize.

 

[William R]

bump

 

[Occam's Banana]

Ron didn't endorce McCain! Why? Principal! And to this point "don't necessarily mean you support absolutely everything a candidate does or believes in".....There is absolutely nothing he believes in that I can agree with.

But Ron *DID* endorse Lamar Smith - so what was your point, again?

 

[ShowMeLiberty]

Many may have wanted Rand Paul to publicly stand by his father until the national convention, but it is nice to know that he as a senator feels responsible to the people of his state above others. That is, after all, the role of a senator – to represent his state.

Excellent article. And we would all do well to remember that Rand's priority is not to represent the movement, it is to represent the people of Kentucky.

 

[MadOdorMachine]

One thing I haven't seen discussed is how Rand will generate funding should he decide to run for President in the future. His actions have pretty much guaranteed he won't get the kind of donations Ron has from the grassroots. What he did is declare the "Ron Paul 2012 Campaign" over. This goes directly against what Ron himself has said the strategy still is - to get delegates and go to the convention. If that is still Ron's goal (which I haven't heard him say otherwise, correct me if I'm wrong) he should not have endorsed Romney before his state's convention. He literally undermined not only the liberty movement, but also his own career and severely crippled any chance Ron had left of getting the nomination.

He should have stayed out of it until the convention was over and then endorsed Romney. Some people still wouldn't like it, but at least he could have said that he was taking Romney at his word on auditing the Fed in exchange for his endorsement. The way he has handled it though has been a disaster and he will have a hard time getting the grassroots to volunteer for him after this.