Washington Times: 'Rand's camp ignoring Ron's supporters'

Matt Collins

Matt Collins

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
47,707
hxxp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/22/rand-paul-flops-as-ron-pauls-successor-loses-liber/


Diana Orrick was a loyal foot solider in the Ron Paul revolution in Nevada four years ago, fighting to put the libertarian icon’s imprint on the 2012 presidential race, and she had every hope his son, Sen. Rand Paul, would be the natural successor.

But her dream has been dashed, she said, with the younger Mr. Paulstruggling to organize, raise money and find a message to reach voters the way his father did.

She was an early supporter of the new Paul presidential campaign, eager to help the Kentucky lawmaker build on his father’s success by pushing libertarianism more into the mainstream. The campaign, though, ignored her, she said. So she shifted her allegiance to Donald Trump.
Click to expand...
 
She was an early supporter of the new Paul presidential campaign, eager to help the Kentucky lawmaker build on his father’s success by pushing libertarianism more into the mainstream. The campaign, though, ignored her, she said. So she shifted her allegiance to Donald Trump.

Rand Paul isn't pushing libertarianism enough so she supports someone who is for an assault weapons ban, eminent domain and bailouts?
 
The campaign, though, ignored her, she said. So she shifted her allegiance to Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

This kind of crap never ceases to amaze me. Oh, Rand didn't lap at my feet, so I'm going to take my toys and run home. It's even happened here on RPFs.

Sad.
 
It is sad. It's sad that this has to be explained so many times yet so many people here continue to not get it.

Rand's message - the message you guys have been disseminating anyway - from the very beginning has been that no candidate is perfect, you have to work through the existing process to make changes, and if you don't win, you don't get any changes made.

How is what she did not 100% in line with that message? Rand's numbers tanked almost immediately. She's had almost a whole year to see that he's not going anywhere. If the point is to give up on some principles in order to win, it makes perfect sense that she shifted over to Trump, especially if the issue that motivates her is keeping additional brown people out of the country.
 
Rand shot himself in the face when he endorsed Romney over his own father.

(Yah yah yah, spin elsewhere, I know what I saw and heard.)

There are at least five people in my small circle of friends and family that I talk politics with that will not touch him because of that, including my mother.

The political class told us it was "necessary" and is "how the game is played" and "you don't understand inside politics" and yadda yadda yadda.

That was where it started, it progressed from there and that is why he's polling at 2 percent.

ETA - And it is the opposite of this (coupled with the promise of free shit) that has Bernie Sanders and his crackpot economics running in the lead in NH on the Socialist side of the isle.
 
Last edited:
fisharmor said:
especially if the issue that motivates her is keeping additional brown people out of the country.
Click to expand...

Well, for what it's worth, I'm in favor of keeping everybody the hell out of the country, until and if, we can get our shit together.

Unless they are people from the few relatively free spots left on the globe, Switzerland, New Zealand perhaps, maybe one of the autonomous free trade areas of Hong Kong.

But only a goofball would want to permanently relocate to AmeriKa from one of those places.
 
Anti Federalist said:
Rand shot himself in the face when he endorsed Romney over his own father.

(Yah yah yah, spin elsewhere, I know what I saw and heard.)

There are at least five people in my small circle of friends and family that I talk politics with that will not touch him because of that, including my mother.

The political class told us it was "necessary" and is "how the game is played" and "you don't understand inside politics" and yadda yadda yadda.

That was where it started, it progressed from there and that is why he's polling at 2 percent.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Ron pretty much out at that point?
 
TheNewYorker said:
Wasn't Ron pretty much out at that point?
Click to expand...

That's a matter of opinion I suppose.

But no, he, Ron, had not come out unequivocally and said "I am no longer running for the GOP nomination".

On May 14, 2012, Paul made a statement on the campaign's website that he would no longer be actively campaigning in remaining state primaries, but would instead continue his presidential bid by seeking to collect delegates at caucuses and state conventions for the Republican National Convention in August 2012
 
Last edited:
Anti Federalist said:
There are at least five people in my small circle of friends and family that I talk politics with that will not touch him because of that, including my mother.
Click to expand...
I think we're about three years past the point where everyone on this site needs to recognize that even if you don't care whether Rand endorsed Romney, there are a lot of people who DO care. It wasn't a minor political move. It was drowning a girl in your car after you'd been drinking level of bad.
 
"The campaign, though, ignored her, she said. So she shifted her allegiance to Donald Trump"

her support was obviously extremely shallow.
 
Here's The REAL Reason Why Rand Paul Endorsed Mitt Romney

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-rand-paul-endorsed-mitt-romney-2012-6

Jun. 18, 2012

Ron Paul World remains deeply divided over Sen. Rand Paul's recent endorsement of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

A quick glance around the online universe of the Ron Paul Revolution reveals that many of the most ardent Paul supporters are still shocked and saddened by the endorsement, which they see as the ultimate betrayal of the elder Paul's grassroots libertarian movement.

For more pragmatic Paulites, however, the surprise endorsement was a shrewd political ploy that puts the younger Paul front and center in the national spotlight, and positions him as a leading figure in the Republican Party, with his eyes set on 2016.

James Milliman, Sen. Paul's state director, explained the logic to a group of Young Republicans in Louisville, Ky., last week:

"As a practical matter, you have to endorse a candidate before the convention — Romney is going to get the nomination, no doubt about that at all, so it behooves everyone to have Sen. Paul to endorse him before the convention," Milliman said. "It could enable Sen. Paul to have a prime speaking role at the convention, and his dad to have a prime speaking role at the convention. I think those things factored in."

The remarks — the Paul team's most candid comments yet regarding the endorsement — appear to suggest that the younger Paul is more concerned with attaining star status within the GOP than with retaining his father's army of diehard fans.

Sen. Paul underscored his intentions this weekend during an appearance at the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference, an annual confab of right-leaning Christian leaders that is viewed by many as a launching pad for conservative politicians.

In a speech to the Coalition gathering on Saturday, Sen. Paul emphasized his efforts to push pro-life legislation in the Senate, and even called for a "spiritual reawakening" in the United States — a decidedly red-meat rallying cry that catered directly to an audience of religious conservatives.

"I think our problems, though, are worse and deeper and more profound than just political leaders can correct. I think we really are in a spiritual crisis as a country. And we need a reawakening. We need a revival," Sen. Paul said, according to CBS News. "I think we are wavering. And there are many moral issues that confront us."

He said later that he left his church in Kentucky because they were too passive in their fight against abortion, adding: "I think we will ultimately be judged on whether we participated, whether we tried to defend life."

The younger Paul's willingness to pander to the Republican Party's far-right conservative base reveals a political intuition and skill that was notably absent from his father's political career.

Although Ron Paul is against abortion, his refusal to market this position has been a source of constant consternation among his socially conservative supporters.

Although it is too early to know for sure, early signs indicate that Paul's political gamble may be working in his favor. Several evangelical leaders have told Business Insider that they were impressed by Paul's speech over the weekend, and that they look forward to hearing more from the Kentucky Senator.

"He's going to be very formidable," one prominent Christian leader told Business Insider. "Rand Paul is definitely moving."

Despite the younger Paul's political pandering, Ron Paul also appears to be on board with his son's new strategy.

"Rand would not have done this without his dad's okay," Milliman told the Louisville Young Republicans. "So if his dad is fine with it, I think everybody else will be fine with it."
 
fisharmor said:
I think we're about three years past the point where everyone on this site needs to recognize that even if you don't care whether Rand endorsed Romney, there are a lot of people who DO care. It wasn't a minor political move. It was drowning a girl in your car after you'd been drinking level of bad.
Click to expand...

Yup, it was that bad and worse.

It was a giant "fuck you" towards, what the political class which has been whispering in his ear, the "nuts and crazies".

There's still a few left of that "insider" crowd around here, but most have slunk off in shame.
 
RE: the endorsements. I fully expect that Rand and Ron discussed this at length beforehand and would not, at all, be surprised if it was Ron's idea in the first place...
 
ronpaulhawaii said:
RE: the endorsements. I fully expect that Rand and Ron discussed this at length beforehand and would not, at all, be surprised if it was Ron's idea in the first place...
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that is irrelevant at this point. Doesn't change anyone's mind. Ron's old supporters have already decided about Rand, whether they love him, hate him, or are meh about him.

I've pointed out before that Ron made terrible endorsements as well. But the Ron lovers who are also Rand haters do not care.

Bottom line. We can see the Romney thing hurt Rand with a lot of people. It is doubtful it helped him at all. This cycle has been very strange.
 
Last edited:
She was an early supporter of the new Paul presidential campaign, eager to help the Kentucky lawmaker build on his father’s success by pushing libertarianism more into the mainstream. The campaign, though, ignored her, she said. So she shifted her allegiance to Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

I could write a book about this but instead I'll just comment with;

'WHUT ?!'
 
ronpaulhawaii said:
RE: the endorsements. I fully expect that Rand and Ron discussed this at length beforehand and would not, at all, be surprised if it was Ron's idea in the first place...
Click to expand...

Maybe.

If he was, it was his second biggest political blunder.

The first?

"Freedom is popular".
 
Anti Federalist said:
Yup, it was that bad and worse.

It was a giant "fuck you" towards, what the political class which has been whispering in his ear, the "nuts and crazies".

There's still a few left of that "insider" crowd around here, but most have slunk off in shame.
Click to expand...
Yep...this, and everything else you've said in this thread. fisharmor's comments are spot on, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top