Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Roger Stone on the Rand Paul Speech

Stone tweets:
Sen Rand Paul speaks to RNC for his 30 pieces of silver . Sell out whore with a Luntz-like toupee.

My take:
Poor launch for Rand's 2016 presidential bid. There will be nothing memorable about the speech. It was very formulalistic, with very awkward wording at times that made it impossible for the crowd to get into it. And then there was Rand's delivery, he looked like a teenager giving his first big speech to a Boy Scout troop.   


21 comments:

  1. Wow, we watched different speeches. I thought it was very good. I loved his dig at neoconservative foreign policy. Yes, it was formulaic and sounded written, but at least it was largely policy-focused, unlike the Christie speech.

    And the crowd was into it from where I was sitting, so I don't know where that came from...?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, what courage, saying not every dollar by the Pentagon is well spent. Someone give Rand a metal.

      Delete
    2. He also said not to give up once ounce of liberty for temporary security, or something along those lines. That was ballsy for someone trying to run for the GOP ticket in 2016. Give him some credit, it's the best speech we'll see at the RNC, which yes isn't saying much blah blah blah.

      Delete
    3. We have different definitions of ballsy. If we are at the point where quoting Ben Franklin is ballsy at the RNC, then how the hell are the Randites going to reform the GOP from the inside?

      I would call it ballsy if Rand had got up there and held up the speech they approved for him and tore it up. It would have been ballsy to actually put your balls on the table and say what the people need to hear. End the wars! End the Fed! End the Patriot Act! End the NDAA! End the TSA! End the drug war! It would have been ballsy to give a Ron Paul speech.

      Rand has a different strategy and thinks toeing the company line is what he needs to do, but that isn't ballsy. That is typical.

      Delete
    4. If Rand wanted he could've given a far more standard Republican speech, one that would've pleased Romney and the establishment more. The speech he instead gave appeared loyal but snuck in subtle attacks on Romney and Ryan's policies. That isn't Ron Paul ballsy, but it's as ballsy as Rand could possibly get and still retain his standing with his party.

      So maybe ballsy is the wrong word, you're right. But this speech wasn't nearly as bad as Stone characterizes it, and it actually accomplished something from Rand's end.

      Delete
  2. Stone is a beltway libertarian who has trashed Ron Paul and his supporters from day one. It is hardly surprising that he is against Rand Paul. But he should also hardly be considered an impartial observer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The war party has spoken and they want Christie in 2016. Mittens plans to endorse him on November 7th.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I was a great speach.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What are you guys smoking? That was the most bromide-filled, uninspiring speech ever. Nothing but Obama bashing. Nothing specific about reducing the size of government. Just some lip service to reform.

      Delete
  5. Unfair, Wenzel, that crowd has been dead from the get go. He received far greater applause than McCain who followed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A good speaker raises crowds from the dead. To be compared to McCain means he has already lost.

      Delete
  6. I admit I am not on the bash Rand bandwagon, but I thought his speech was fine, especially since you know this speech was vetted beforehand by the Romney campaign. Rand is walking a fine line and this wasn't the time for a rousing speech. Rand was showing his loyalty to the party, and for better or worse, he succeeded.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, if it wasn't the time for a rousing speech for freedom, he sure succeeded.

      Delete
  7. I can't think of a republican who would say they disagree with anything Rand said. It sounded like a typical republican political speech. What republican voter would listen to that speech and think they needed to reassess any part of their atrocious political philosophy? What democrat will here that speech and think he is anything but a typical republican?

    Is Rand's strategy to become another Jim Demint? How many libertarians do you think credit people like this with waking them up?

    The only use I can see for myself in a guy like Rand Paul is to show I'm not following a name but an ideal. By explaining that Rand doesn't get or deserve my support I can differentiate my libertarian beliefs from his brand of Jim Demintism.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Disagree. He spoke about the Constitution. He spoke about never trading freedom for the false sense of security. He spoke (*gasp*) about prgamatically cutting "defense" spending. You will not hear any of the other Neocon Rethuglicans say these things.

    It was a good speech up until the point he gave the obligatory endorsement of Romney.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I felt exactly this way.

      Delete
    2. I just had a thought that echoed yours. Rand making inroads with the GOP and this current batch of crooks is better than nothing, or at least better than the Bushes, the Mccains, etc have given us thus far. He's not his father, and he should make every effort to win over the base his father has created from nothing, but I don't mind him becoming successful as a politician.

      If Ron Paul hadn't spent years as a GOP politician, and stayed with the Libertarian Party, and spent his life as an OBGYN with a famous goldbug newsletter, he wouldn't have gained the traction and inspired an entire generation of young people (I'm counting myself here, I didn't care about politics until Ron's 2008 bid).

      Presumably, the movement will continue to grow thanks to the internet's ability to spread and foster ideas; I don't mind that the less-than-pure Rand, with his decent budget proposal and willingness to speak against militarism is in the headlines instead of the Gulianis, the Santorums, the Mccains, etc.

      Delete
  9. I knew Patrick Henry. And Rand is no Patrick Henry.

    ReplyDelete