Rand Paul gets speaking slot at Republican National Convention

[newbitech]

seriously?

I'm not going over it all, we had it out for weeks here. Let's just say I disagree.

Yeah, seriously. I understand why people are pissed. I just think it's aiming at the wrong guy. Making Rand a scapegoat for the failures of Ron Paul and his campaign to secure the nomination 3 times in the last 20 years is preposterous. It's the republican party who is reluctant to honor Ron Paul, not his son, and not his supporters.

 

[cocrehamster]

There is no way that they would allow Ron to give HIS speech unless he receives it from being nominated. I'd rather Rand give a watered down speech than Ron.

 

[sailingaway]

There is no way that they would allow Ron to give HIS speech unless he receives it from being nominated. I'd rather Rand give a watered down speech than Ron.

I'd rather if Ron can't that they have no illusions or pretense of having our support in any way, personally.

 

[sailingaway]

Yeah, seriously. I understand why people are pissed. I just think it's aiming at the wrong guy. Making Rand a scapegoat for the failures of Ron Paul and his campaign to secure the nomination 3 times in the last 20 years is preposterous. It's the republican party who is reluctant to honor Ron Paul, not his son, and not his supporters.

I personally believe the endorsement had an impact on the success of the campaign, specifically TX and Oregon and other late conventions. I would not be surprised if some in the campaign thought it was a good idea, but I don't.

 

[QWDC]

I was starting to wonder if the RNC was going to invite any TEA party types at all, do they really think it would over well if they snubbed them entirely? Good for Rand though, it will further raise his profile and help paint him as a future leader of the fiscal conservative/TEA party movement in the minds of viewers and the media.

 

[AJ Antimony]

Rand: "Ladies and gentlemen... I'm honored to introduce our next speaker, my father, Dr. Ron Paul!"

Why not?

 

[RickyJ]

Rand: "Ladies and gentlemen... I'm honored to introduce our next speaker, my father, Dr. Ron Paul!"

Why not?

I wish, but from what I have seen of Rand lately, I doubt it.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

What he gets out of endorsing the establishment is the establishment's support for him in 2016. If it pans out like this, it was well worth the trade-off.

This.

 

[tsai3904]

Rand: "Ladies and gentlemen... I'm honored to introduce our next speaker, my father, Dr. Ron Paul!"

Why not?

Because Ron is still a candidate and I don't see how the RNC can schedule in a speaking slot for someone who's still trying to win the nomination. There's not going to be an assigned speaking slot for Romney.

 

[sailingaway]

Because Ron is still a candidate and I don't see how the RNC can schedule in a speaking slot for someone who's still trying to win the nomination. There's not going to be an assigned speaking slot for Romney.

He could easily have been asked. Everyone was talking about would he be or wont he be, in and out of the GOP.

I'd rather we nominate him from the floor, and I hope Rand's doing this signals that Romney is not going to fight that.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Rand: "Ladies and gentlemen... I'm honored to introduce our next speaker, my father, Dr. Ron Paul!"

Why not?

Replace speaker with President and it'll be the perfect speech

 

[tsai3904]

He could easily have been asked. Everyone was talking about would he be or wont he be, in and out of the GOP.

I'd rather we nominate him from the floor, and I hope Rand's doing this signals that Romney is not going to fight that.

I think it will come down to the Credentials Committee determining whether or not we have the 5 states. If they determine we don't have the 5 states, then I can see them giving Ron a speaking slot. If they determine we do have the 5 states, then there's no point in giving Ron a speaking slot.

It wouldn't make sense to announce a slot for Ron and then the Credentials Committee determining we do have the 5 states.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I wish, but from what I have seen of Rand lately, I doubt it.

Rand has been going the extra mile helping get our people elected.

 

[sailingaway]

I really have a problem with Rand speaking there if Ron's speaking is in doubt. Without Romney's opposition, Ron will be nominated from the floor, he clearly won more than 5 states. If Romney is removing opposition, I would expect the credentials committee to make that finding.

If he is still opposing Ron speaking there, for Rand to speak there undermines Ron's leverage, imho. Do you think he would have gotten that spot were he not Ron's son?

 

[ProvincialPeasant]

It's funny how so many Paulites think they are so indispensable to the GOP and to libertarian candidates, in this case Rand Paul, that by withdrawing their support they'll be able to change the world. When you withdrew your support from Romney and gave it all to Ron Paul, he didn't win the nomination remember? You can't complain about the GOP excluding you when all you do is attack them.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Jeb Bush? Happy happy joy joy. I am not looking forward to four years of the establishment pushing Jeb...

 

[sailingaway]

It's funny how so many Paulites think they are so indispensable to the GOP and to libertarian candidates, in this case Rand Paul, that by withdrawing their support they'll be able to change the world. When you withdrew your support from Romney and gave it all to Ron Paul, he didn't win the nomination remember? You can't complain about the GOP excluding you when all you do is attack them.

I don't consider them on our side, but I think we are supposed to consider Rand on our side. and there was a whole lot of cheating going on. And yes they can do it again, and may consider us not indispensable, but then why is Rand speaking there? I hope Ron will be nominated from the floor. Without that, it seems like they were given a cheap way out.

 

[bunklocoempire]

Rand has given the Romney endorsement, now he might very well take Romney publicly to the woodshed.

Given the public's memory, a possible woodshed moment might be forgotten all together come 2016. (Republican party, blah blah, party, blah blah, don't let the D's win, blah, blah)

If the possible woodshed moment is to be brought up in 2016, all woes then current (things won't get better without liberty) could be traced back to not listening to the 'Pauls'.

Santorum and Jeb? Lord help us.

Using the Republican party without gettin' any on ya is friggin' nerve wracking.

Someone get me a switch.

 

[RickyJ]

Rand has been going the extra mile helping get our people elected.

I hope I am wrong and he does try to give it to his father, but I have doubts that he would upset the establishment by doing it against their wishes. Like I said I hope I am wrong. We will see soon.

 

[RickyJ]

It's funny how so many Paulites think they are so indispensable to the GOP and to libertarian candidates, in this case Rand Paul, that by withdrawing their support they'll be able to change the world. When you withdrew your support from Romney and gave it all to Ron Paul, he didn't win the nomination remember? You can't complain about the GOP excluding you when all you do is attack them.

Huh? We can't blame the GOP for breaking their own rules, hiring off duty policemen to break bones of Ron Paul delegates? We can and do blame them for this. The GOP needs us, we sure they heck don't need them!