Rand Paul gets speaking slot at Republican National Convention

[parocks]

If selling one's soul is the only way to break through the 1% barrier, I'd rather continue to lose. At least I will still sleep well at night.

By not voting for the lesser of 2 evils, ever, ever, it just means that the greater of 2 evils wins always. And that every single time things get worse faster.

Typically, the time to fight is the primary season, and we're fighting until the end, because we insist Ron Paul do so even though it's fairly clear that he doesn't want to douse himself with gasoline and set himself on fire.

But, typically, after the primary is settled, the nominee is supported.

This year, Romney is being a total asshole to Ron Paul, so the natural tendency of typical "libertarian conservative" Republicans like myself this year is to say "FU Romney. My friends / people I know / people I voted for were elected delegates. I want them to go to Tampa. They bought their tickets already. Don't be an asshole, Romney.

And it would be nice if we could get something. I'm very happy with Rand Paul as VP.

What many Ron Paul supporters just seem to have trouble getting is that we didn't win a single primary. Romney did. Santorum did. Gingrich did. We didn't. But we think WE should be the nominee. It's just kinda hard to justify that. Now, blah blah black swan blah blah, but

 

[sailingaway]

They are different and play different roles. Both are needed. It has been said multiple times, but I will say it again. There are a number of people who Ron could not reach, because they did not hear the message amidst all the other distractions. Rand can speak in terms that they understand.

There are not enough of us. Not by a mile. We need someone to be able to get through to these people. I think Rand has the ability to do that.

I'm not saying Rand has zero value. I just think that when Ron is running for president the leverage of RON'S support should be getting HIM exposure and influence.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I don't "hate" Rand. I'm just extremely disappointed that he endorsed...AND that he chose that venue to do so.

I understand that. But, he really had to endorse Romney. Heck, even Scribbler endorsed Romney. It's just what you have to do if you want to not be sidelined in the Republican Party. But, I didn't like the timing of it. Still don't. But, it is what it is and I am going on.

 

[sailingaway]

By not voting for the lesser of 2 evils, ever, ever, it just means that the greater of 2 evils wins always. And that every single time things get worse faster.

Typically, the time to fight is the primary season, and we're fighting until the end, because we insist Ron Paul do so even though it's fairly clear that he doesn't want to douse himself with gasoline and set himself on fire.

But, typically, after the primary is settled, the nominee is supported.

This year, Romney is being a total asshole to Ron Paul, so the natural tendency of typical "libertarian conservative" Republicans like myself this year is to say "FU Romney. My friends / people I know / people I voted for were elected delegates. I want them to go to Tampa. They bought their tickets already. Don't be an asshole, Romney.

And it would be nice if we could get something. I'm very happy with Rand Paul as VP.

What many Ron Paul supporters just seem to have trouble getting is that we didn't win a single primary. Romney did. Santorum did. Gingrich did. We didn't. But we think WE should be the nominee. It's just kinda hard to justify that. Now, blah blah black swan blah blah, but

again, a lot of things beyond the GOP nomination are on the table.

 

[cajuncocoa]

High profile candidates always endorse the party nominee over the other guy. Secondly, his endorsement was not unconditional. There are strings attached. Romney can hang himself in the future, if he reneges on them.

Some Tea Party activists seem to think Sarah Palin is a pretty high-profile name (if not the highest, where they're concerned)...can't help but notice that she hasn't endorsed yet.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not saying Rand has zero value.

Mighty big of you.

I just think that when Ron is running for president the leverage of RON'S support should be getting HIM exposure and influence.

What was he supposed to do, Sailing? Turn it down? Now, that would be stupid.

 

[AuH20]

And lets put this into context, Kentucky was one of our worst states for Ron Paul voting results in 2008. The south in general and Kentucky aren't libertarian strongholds, but Rand won there while simultaneously defeating the McConnell machine. That's absolutely unprecedented and the majority of people thought it couldn't be done. I had a hard time seeing how Rand could win Kentucky, but he tailored the message beautifully, got well over 600,000 votes in the general election. Now extrapolate that those results to much friendlier Paul states like Iowa and New Hampshire Rand will be the second coming of Dan Gable in Iowa. I'm chompin at the bit to kick off the 2016 campaign after Romney gets crushed.

Rand's real draw is how honest he comes across. He basically states that both parties, including his own, have spent this country into oblivion. Admitting the problem goes a long way in drawing skeptics. When he campaigned, he projected himself as a concerned citizen as opposed to a politician of one of the 2 parties.

 

[DeMintConservative]

Yes.

I would only agree for a specific target audience. He does best with southern conservatives, imho.

I fully disagree.

I think he does better with everyone except hardcore Ron Paul supporters/ancaps/conspiracy theorists/rothbardians. His message is more inclusive as he doesn't focus so much in a couple of wedge issues. Plus, he doesn't carry his dad's baggage (the newsletters, the association with Rockwell) and he's more conservative in terms of foreign policy (more in line with a traditional conservative like Robert Taft and not with the extremely idealistic Rothbard views that 98% of the American voters don't support and most see as repugnant).

Ron Paul can't turn a more traditional and paleo-libertarian leaning conservatism dominant among the GOP. Rand Paul can.

 

[Eire4RonPaul]

Who are you to suggest that I should stop speaking?

No, I'm not involved with people on the ground in Louisiana (no interest in getting involved with the GOP...how many times do I have to say it?) Nobody seemed to mind when I was making phone calls for, and donating money to, Ron Paul though.

If you are an example of the so-called liberty movement, I will gladly march alone.

Here, here.

For someone using Bastiats name, it's unbelievable the ignorance people hold here when the very same individuals are promoting the f*cking Tea Party bigots. Tea Party people are not friends of Liberty. Why anyone would consider them as much is truly astonishing. Ron Paul distanced himself from them years ago - they're a bunch of hardcore religious bigots that no self-respecting Libertarian, Constitutionalist would want anything do do with.

 

[sailingaway]

Mighty big of you.



What was he supposed to do, Sailing? Turn it down? Now, that would be stupid.

His endorsement was the issue that got him this and gave Romney this path to say he had given us a concession. Yes, I think Rand shouldn't play into it, but that is because I think he shouldn't have endorsed BEFORE CONVENTION at all. Amash didn't. Bills didn't. Davis in SC didn't. In the matter of who should get the benefit of Ron's support during Ron's campaign and convention, I do think Rand literally should not have offered himself as a substitute.

 

[AuH20]

Here, here.

For someone using Bastiats name, it's unbelievable the ignorance people hold here when the very same individuals are promoting the f*cking Tea Party bigots. Tea Party people are not friends of Liberty. Why anyone would consider them as much is truly astonishing. Ron Paul distanced himself from them years ago - they're a bunch of hardcore religious bigots that no self-respecting Libertarian, Constitutionalist would want anything do do with.

How do you know??? There are many tea party members in this very forum.

 

[DeMintConservative]

By not voting for the lesser of 2 evils, ever, ever, it just means that the greater of 2 evils wins always. And that every single time things get worse faster.

Very well said.

I'm always puzzled with the idea that allowing Democrats and liberals to win over moderate Republicans will somehow make things easier in the future for conservatives and libertarians. Just look at the rest of the world. In Europe even a guy like Romney would be reduced to the far-right fringes.

 

[sailingaway]

I fully disagree.

I think he does better with everyone except hardcore Ron Paul supporters/ancaps/conspiracy theorists/rothbardians. His message is more inclusive as he doesn't focus so much in a couple of wedge issues. Plus, he doesn't carry his dad's baggage (the newsletters, the association with Rockwell) and he's more conservative in terms of foreign policy (more in line with a traditional conservative like Robert Taft and not with the extremely idealistic Rothbard views that 98% of the American voters don't support and most see as repugnant).

Ron Paul can't turn a more traditional and paleo-libertarian leaning conservatism dominant among the GOP. Rand Paul can.

I'm about as traditional a paleo as you can find, I do believe.

So we just have to agree to disagree.

 

[LibertyEagle]

His endorsement was the issue that got him this and gave Romney this path to say he had given us a concession. Yes, I think Rand shouldn't play into it, but that is because I think he shouldn't have endorsed BEFORE CONVENTION at all. Amash didn't. Bills didn't. Davis in SC didn't. In the matter of who should get the benefit of Ron's support during Ron's campaign and convention, I do think Rand literally should not have offered himself as a substitute.

Who said he was a substitute and who said Rand offered himself up as anything at all?

 

[cajuncocoa]

I guess everyone here liked Ron Paul for different reasons, and that probably has to do with the fact that some are more put off by Rand's endorsement and speaking slot than others.

It wasn't just that Ron Paul took a stand that was right on certain issues...it was his consistency and steadfastness that really made me proud to support him.

It seems as though some here are saying that Rand, as the de facto future leader of the liberty movement, has to lure our opposition by pretending to be one of them (kissing Hannity ass, while continuing to propose and support legislation favorable to the liberty movement). The legislation is great, but I just could never imagine Ron Paul kissing the ass of anyone as repugnant as Sean Hannity and his ilk. That was and remains a huge turn-off for me.

I loved the idea that Ron Paul didn't play those games. That's why it's disappointing to me to see what Rand is doing.

 

[sailingaway]

Who said he was a substitute?

My argument, above, why I don't like it is my opinion that Romney views this as a cheap way to 'deal with the Ron Paul people' rather than giving any concessions to Ron. As I also said, maybe Rand knows Romney is dropping his challenges of Ron's delegates and this isn't instead. But you asked if there could only be one wouldn't Rand be better than neither and my opinion is no, because that gives Romney this superficial coloration. That is my own view, of course.

 

[AuH20]

Very well said.

I'm always puzzled with the idea that allowing Democrats and liberals to win over moderate Republicans will somehow make things easier in the future for conservatives and libertarians. Just look at the rest of the world. In Europe even a guy like Romney would be reduced to the far-right fringes.

The rest of world is a joke politically speaking. You're right. Romney would be considered ultra-conservative in Europe, which explains why they are on the brink of a collapse.

 

[DeMintConservative]

I guess everyone here liked Ron Paul for different reasons, and that probably has to do with the fact that some are more put off by Rand's endorsement and speaking slot than others.

It wasn't just that Ron Paul took a stand that was right on certain issues...it was his consistency and steadfastness that really made me proud to support him.

It seems as though some here are saying that Rand, as the de facto future leader of the liberty movement, has to lure our opposition by pretending to be one of them (kissing Hannity ass, while continuing to propose and support legislation favorable to the liberty movement). The legislation is great, but I just could never imagine Ron Paul kissing the ass of anyone as repugnant as Sean Hannity and his ilk. That was and remains a huge turn-off for me.

I loved the idea that Ron Paul didn't play those games. That's why it's disappointing to me to see what Rand is doing.

Politics is about persuasion. It's not about treating anyone else who doesn't fully agree with you as enemies. It's about making friends, not enemies.

 

[AuH20]

I guess everyone here liked Ron Paul for different reasons, and that probably has to do with the fact that some are more put off by Rand's endorsement and speaking slot than others.

It wasn't just that Ron Paul took a stand that was right on certain issues...it was his consistency and steadfastness that really made me proud to support him.

It seems as though some here are saying that Rand, as the de facto future leader of the liberty movement, has to lure our opposition by pretending to be one of them (kissing Hannity ass, while continuing to propose and support legislation favorable to the liberty movement). The legislation is great, but I just could never imagine Ron Paul kissing the ass of anyone as repugnant as Sean Hannity and his ilk. That was and remains a huge turn-off for me.

I loved the idea that Ron Paul didn't play those games. That's why it's disappointing to me to see what Rand is doing.

What is the payoff for intentionally pissing off Hannity? I'm trying to understand the strategy benefit? You don't employ a scorched earch policy unless you are forced to.

 

[Eire4RonPaul]

How do you know??? There are many tea party members in this very forum.

Who cares?

They show a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do. They were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 – opposing abortion and womens rights, for example – and still are today. Tea Party supporters today desire to see religion play a prominent role in politics - they seek “deeply religious” elected officials (is this Iran? - sounds like Christian fundamentalists to me...the cheek of them looking down upon islamic theocracies), approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion and creationism (ffs) brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government and keeping grown men and women out of the bedroom when it comes to equality and sexual freedom.

Paul ran a mile from the Tea Party years ago. He said that they've become nothing of what he envisioned. And fair play to him - Ron Paul is logical, which is more than I can say for the bigots in the TP - good riddance. The fact that the TP's fawned all over Santorum should suggest to you that Ron Paul is not "their kind of guy". The want limited government, as long as it doesn't extend to them! A lot of them jumped on the bandwagon years ago, got sent to Washington and have done absolute f*ck all since besides pick up a nice paycheck. A bunch of con-artists, the whole lot of them. Next....