Rand Paul endorses Romney

[teddy12b]

It said in the Hannity video that he talked to his dad about it. At least he didn't attack his own father from behind. He came at him from the front before screwing him over. What a classy guy that Rand is.

 

[Phil502]

I don't think he did anything really wrong, him and his Dad both know there is no chance for Pops to get the seat. Dr. Paul made his point, he got some votes, he got mine too but it's over now.

 

[lucky4034]

Andrew Napolitano / Justin Amash 2016!!

We'll be lucky to sustain until then.... Once the Euro crashes, we won't be too far behind.

 

[KLB]

It said in the Hannity video that he talked to his dad about it. At least he didn't attack his own father from behind. He came at him from the front before screwing him over. What a classy guy that Rand is.

Screwed him how? Ron Paul won't be running for President in the general election, Mitt Romney will be.

Ron Paul isn't bailing on the Republican party either, so I am confused by your logic.

 

[RockofStrength]

He's still a POS in my book. Eff Rand Paul, his father deserves to have had a better son. "Et tu Brute"

Yes, because it is a requirement that children should not only support their parent's views, but should also do so in the EXACT SAME WAY regardless of whether it is working or not.

 

[teddy12b]

Yes, because it is a requirement that children should not only support their parent's views, but should also do so in the EXACT SAME WAY regardless of whether it is working or not.

He doesn't have to agree with everything his dad does or support his every decision, but the arguement can certainly be made that he was elected to public office largely on the coattails of his fathers reputation and name. After all of that to publicly throw his support behind the Romney is just a shame. It's also got a lot to do with the timing of his endorsement. If he had waited until Romney had clenched the nomination and all the hopes for a RP underdog delegate victory were diminished then the timing would have been more appropriate. Rand isn't throwing his support behind Romney for anything more than to ensure his career in politics. The whole thing is just a disappointment to me. The rest of you are free to feel however you want to about it, and I'll be happy for you.

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

I don't think he did anything really wrong, him and his Dad both know there is no chance for Pops to get the seat. Dr. Paul made his point, he got some votes, he got mine too but it's over now.

I agree with the fact that there pretty much was no chance. At this point, Romney now has 999 bound delegates. Utah's primary won't give him the 1144, but there are enough super delegates that will likely go to him.

The only way Paul could have pulled off the nomination would be if a fair number of national delegates ignored party rules (and in some cases state laws) and voted against how they were bound. Paul probably has enough stealth delegates to do it, but the fallout would be huge. And even after that, there was no way he had enough delegates to obtain the 1144 in later rounds unless they did a lot of convincing. It would be more likely that we ended up with a completely different candidate.

That being said though, there was some wrong in Rand's **** chat with Hannity. I honestly don't know how he thinks that his endorsement will bring new independents to Romney. The independents and democrats who defected to the Paul camp were there mostly for civil rights issues and wanting less foreign entanglements. I don't see these people lining up to support Romney. There are plenty that don't like Rand because his foreign policy views differ from Ron's.

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

It's also got a lot to do with the timing of his endorsement. If he had waited until Romney had clenched the nomination and all the hopes for a RP underdog delegate victory were diminished then the timing would have been more appropriate. Rand isn't throwing his support behind Romney for anything more than to ensure his career in politics. The whole thing is just a disappointment to me. The rest of you are free to feel however you want to about it, and I'll be happy for you.

I agree with you on this. That being said, I imagine that the timing had to do with the fact that Rand (along with Santorum, Cain, Bachman and others) had a speaking spot at CPAC today.

 

[teddy12b]

I agree with you on this. That being said, I imagine that the timing had to do with the fact that Rand (along with Santorum, Cain, Bachman and others) had a speaking spot at CPAC today.

Either way, endorsing Romney was an issue that could have been timed differently. If Rand honestly thinks he's going to get the FED audited by dropping on his knees for Romney I think he's completely mistaken.

 

[88GT]

He doesn't have to agree with everything his dad does or support his every decision, but the arguement can certainly be made that he was elected to public office largely on the coattails of his fathers reputation and name. After all of that to publicly throw his support behind the Romney is just a shame. It's also got a lot to do with the timing of his endorsement. If he had waited until Romney had clenched the nomination and all the hopes for a RP underdog delegate victory were diminished then the timing would have been more appropriate. Rand isn't throwing his support behind Romney for anything more than to ensure his career in politics. The whole thing is just a disappointment to me. The rest of you are free to feel however you want to about it, and I'll be happy for you.

Funny, I never took you for a whiner.

How is it that you don't think he should have to walk in daddy's footsteps, but you start *****ing if he so much as turns his head to check out the fork the in road not taken?

Ron P doesn't want the job. If he did, he would have run an entirely different campaign. Rand isn't doing anything to jeopardize RP's chances at POTUS that RP himself didn't run off the road a thousand times before.

Heaven forbid, he plays nice with the GOP establishment to ensure himself a place at the table where his opinions and views on governance will have an bona fide chance of being heard. Because, you know, it's always better to be relegated to kook status and not have the rest of the country take you seriously.

 

[gunowner930]

Rand Paul is a little more "mainstream" than his father. He may not be Ron but he solidly for small government and civil liberties. I'd love to see a future President Paul, he may not be perfect but he may be the best candidate we could get who has a realistic chance of winning.

 

[CarmelHP]

Funny, I never took you for a whiner.

How is it that you don't think he should have to walk in daddy's footsteps, but you start *****ing if he so much as turns his head to check out the fork the in road not taken?

Ron P doesn't want the job. If he did, he would have run an entirely different campaign. Rand isn't doing anything to jeopardize RP's chances at POTUS that RP himself didn't run off the road a thousand times before.

Heaven forbid, he plays nice with the GOP establishment to ensure himself a place at the table where his opinions and views on governance will have an bona fide chance of being heard. Because, you know, it's always better to be relegated to kook status and not have the rest of the country take you seriously.

No! All must fall on their sword for the Ron Paul campaign. Victory or death. Let none return alive.

 

[88GT]

No! All must fall on their sword for the Ron Paul campaign. Victory or death. Let none return alive.

I'm beginning to think this is the strategy. And it only reinforces the characterization.

 

[teddy12b]

Funny, I never took you for a whiner.

How is it that you don't think he should have to walk in daddy's footsteps, but you start *****ing if he so much as turns his head to check out the fork the in road not taken? I don't think he has to be exactly like his father, but lets face it the only reason people know who Ron Paul is is because he has been so different from the rest of the herd. At one time I had hoped that Rand would follow more closely to his fathers footsteps, not saying that he should be his younger clone but more aligned politically. I don't blaim the guy for considering other options as everyone much, but I do blaim him for making choices that are going to commit him to walking a line that leads to status quo politics. Does anyone here honestly believe that he's going to be able to get the Fed audited just because he's kissing up to Romney? Or that he'll be able to get us closer to a gold standard, now? Rand is making a compromise that he believes is in the best interest of the country, just like Lugar, Mark Sauder etc, started doing once upon a time. As strong as he is, he's starting down a dirty road.

Ron P doesn't want the job. If he did, he would have run an entirely different campaign. Rand isn't doing anything to jeopardize RP's chances at POTUS that RP himself didn't run off the road a thousand times before. This is a widely debated opinion that RP never wanted to win. I think it was a nice way for a lot of people to justify to themselves why they didn't want to vote for RP with the same old lines of "he can't win" etc, when there was a chance that if enough RP delegates got to Tampa that could have taken the nomination. Depending on where you get the numbers from it really was a possibility unless you wholeheartedly believe everything the main stream media feeds you. I honestly don't think that RP would have gone through all this trouble without wanting to win, as he's said in many interviews that it's the best way to spread the message.

Heaven forbid, he plays nice with the GOP establishment to ensure himself a place at the table where his opinions and views on governance will have an bona fide chance of being heard. Because, you know, it's always better to be relegated to kook status and not have the rest of the country take you seriously.

I don't blaim the guy for being polite and playing nice with the GOP or the D party. There should be a certain level of statesmanship expected from any political figure. The problem is that throwing his support for Romney takes away from the message of Liberty and Limited Gov at a time when the movement is gaining ground, albeit little by little. I don't blaim the guy for wanting to keep a voice alive and relavent to the discussion, but I genuinely think the timing of his support for the mainstream "anybody but O" vote could have waited.

 

[88GT]

I don't think he has to be exactly like his father, but lets face it the only reason people know who Ron Paul is is because he has been so different from the rest of the herd. At one time I had hoped that Rand would follow more closely to his fathers footsteps, not saying that he should be his younger clone but more aligned politically. I don't blaim the guy for considering other options as everyone much, but I do blaim him for making choices that are going to commit him to walking a line that leads to status quo politics.

And in what way does backing Romney over Obama tie him inextricably to status quo politics?

Does anyone here honestly believe that he's going to be able to get the Fed audited just because he's kissing up to Romney? Or that he'll be able to get us closer to a gold standard, now? Rand is making a compromise that he believes is in the best interest of the country, just like Lugar, Mark Sauder etc, started doing once upon a time. As strong as he is, he's starting down a dirty road.

He sure as hell can't get the Fed audited by attacking Romney, can he?

This is a widely debated opinion that RP never wanted to win. I think it was a nice way for a lot of people to justify to themselves why they didn't want to vote for RP with the same old lines of "he can't win" etc, when there was a chance that if enough RP delegates got to Tampa that could have taken the nomination.

I'm sorry. I don't find a position that requires that much mental gymnastics to be all that credible. Paul ignored conventional wisdom for winning campaigns. Which means that winning was not his ultimate goal. I don't fault him for that. I applaud his allegiance to whatever motivations were stronger and more important to him such that he didn't whore them out just to win. But he did NOT run a campaign to win.

(Side note: I neither debated this with anyone to the point that I came to think it was such, nor did I need to conjure such an excuse to console myself with not voting for him. I did, in fact, cast my primary vote for Paul. But had I not done so, I would have slept very well that night and every night since secure in the righteousness of using MY vote for MY principles. )

Depending on where you get the numbers from it really was a possibility unless you wholeheartedly believe everything the main stream media feeds you. I honestly don't think that RP would have gone through all this trouble without wanting to win, as he's said in many interviews that it's the best way to spread the message.

This is what I get from the above comment: I can find a set of numbers that back up my claim, and if you still don't believe it, you're just a kool-aid drinking sheeple.

Look, I'm not trying to be a *****, but these tired old arguments are losing traction. It's the Paulinian version of the race card.

I absolutely believe Paul would mount the campaign and never want the job. Not that he wouldn't take it if the planets aligned the right way. I think he knew all along he would never get the nomination. He said himself he didn't think he would be president (please don't ask me to find it; Rambone probably has it catalogued 3 different ways though). It's the campaign that spreads the message. Not his presidency. He knew this. Political dialogue is at its highest during the year leading up to a POTUS election. People who never pay attention to politics the other 3.5 years of the cycle will pull their collective head out of the sand and be open to ideas. Once the election is over, it's done. Paul makes no headway as POTUS. He makes great strides as a candidate.

I don't blaim the guy for being polite and playing nice with the GOP or the D party.

Then what was with the "eff him" comment? Because blaming him seems to be exactly what you're doing.

There should be a certain level of statesmanship expected from any political figure. The problem is that throwing his support for Romney takes away from the message of Liberty and Limited Gov at a time when the movement is gaining ground, albeit little by little.

No, you only think it takes away from the message. It's an opinion.

I don't blaim the guy for wanting to keep a voice alive and relavent to the discussion, but I genuinely think the timing of his support for the mainstream "anybody but O" vote could have waited.

Based on your limited information and your personal assessment. I'd bet a case of 5.56 ammo both Pauls have a fair bit better picture than you.

 

[hooky]

Why marginalize his viewpoint by attacking Romney?

 

[ocsdor]

Sen. Rand Paul:...

 

[teddy12b]

And in what way does backing Romney over Obama tie him inextricably to status quo politics? This gets into the same old debates we've been having since the primary races began. You have Obama people, Romney people, and RP people. The RP people don't see Romney as much different than Obama especially when we're supposed to take him at his word today hoping that it won't change tomorrow. Romney and Obama are both establishment puppets funded by Goldman Sachs and the rest of the banks. They share the same foreign policy and spend habits even though they don't chose to spend on the same things. I don't think I'm going to convince you that Romney can do anything wrong or that RP could do anything right from your point of view.


He sure as hell can't get the Fed audited by attacking Romney, can he?
He's also not going to get it audited serving a master who is unwilling to bite the hand that feeds him. I don't believe for one second that Romney will rock the boat with the Fed. Maybe you do and that's where we differ.

I'm sorry. I don't find a position that requires that much mental gymnastics to be all that credible. Paul ignored conventional wisdom for winning campaigns. Which means that winning was not his ultimate goal. I don't fault him for that. I applaud his allegiance to whatever motivations were stronger and more important to him such that he didn't whore them out just to win. But he did NOT run a campaign to win. Paul had no choice but to ignore convention election tactics, because those cost the kind of money that can only be funded by political favors and banks that he didn't have in his back pocket. Yes it was a different campaign, but it was different because it was an honest one. He's not quitting with millions in debt like Newt or Santorum. He's ran the greatest grassroots funded campaign that this country has seen in recent history for the presidency and he gets crapped on because he didn't use main stream tactics? If you can't see the difference here after all the months of argueing and online debates, then Eff it. I can only lead a horse to water. The man tried to win, but was shut down by establishment news & establishment funding.

(Side note: I neither debated this with anyone to the point that I came to think it was such, nor did I need to conjure such an excuse to console myself with not voting for him. I did, in fact, cast my primary vote for Paul. But had I not done so, I would have slept very well that night and every night since secure in the righteousness of using MY vote for MY principles. ) Good, we should all vote our principles.



This is what I get from the above comment: I can find a set of numbers that back up my claim, and if you still don't believe it, you're just a kool-aid drinking sheeple. You might not like to hear it and that's fine, but there's huge differences between what was reported and what was actually happening. I don't think think people believing the mass media are automatically sheeple, but it's going to be a tough arguement to make that many of them are doing their due dilligence on validating their information. Again, you don't buy into it so there's not much point to keep hitting my head against a wall.

Look, I'm not trying to be a *****, but these tired old arguments are losing traction. It's the Paulinian version of the race card. The arguements are getting tired and it's exhausting having to restate the same old stuff every time a thread comes up where Ron Paul gets discussed. Some people don't like him and that's fine, but to sit there and say he never tried to win, or that he never could is just BS.

I absolutely believe Paul would mount the campaign and never want the job. Not that he wouldn't take it if the planets aligned the right way. I think he knew all along he would never get the nomination. He said himself he didn't think he would be president (please don't ask me to find it; Rambone probably has it catalogued 3 different ways though). It's the campaign that spreads the message. Not his presidency. He knew this. Political dialogue is at its highest during the year leading up to a POTUS election. People who never pay attention to politics the other 3.5 years of the cycle will pull their collective head out of the sand and be open to ideas. Once the election is over, it's done. Paul makes no headway as POTUS. He makes great strides as a candidate.




Then what was with the "eff him" comment? Because blaming him seems to be exactly what you're doing.

I'm not blaming a guy for being polite and non-divisive as a statesman. I'm blaming him for sticking it to his dad's campaign to create an opportunity for himself. He's just another shark in the pool.

No, you only think it takes away from the message. It's an opinion.
Yes it is my opinion that Rand is abondoning the Liberty message and it's just that. Throwing support behind a candidate who I honestly don't think will change a thing would take away from the liberty movement. It's my opinion.


Based on your limited information and your personal assessment. I'd bet a case of 5.56 ammo both Pauls have a fair bit better picture than you.

I'd bet a case of 5.56 that anyone in DC has a better picture than anyone on either side of this conversation does. What's the point in that? Obviously the guys in the meeting we don't see and having the discussions we don't hear about are going to have a more intimate knowledge of what's going on.

 

[Cerberus]

Teddy, relax a bit. This was planned. Very strategic.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Teddy, relax a bit. This was planned. Very strategic.

Spot on.

Rand Paul just looked at the scoreboard.

So did his father.

When it's futile to swing your sword anymore, you get on your horse and ride.

Rand, and I even believe Ron Paul are both currently going to work to swing the R's towards liberty. That's a heck of a lot harder to do from the outside looking in....