Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Is Ron Paul (Maybe) Getting Ready to Endorse Mitt Romney?

That's the question the Christian Science Monitor is asking.

Here are CM's suspicions on why it may happen:

We ask that question because Congressman Paul’s campaign website in recent days has posted several pieces that discuss political endorsements in a somewhat defensive manner. In one, campaign blogger Jack Hunter talks about libertarian founding father Murray Rothbard’s 1992 endorsement of President George H. W. Bush. 
Rothbard’s libertarian principles did not evaporate because of the “mere act of endorsing,” writes Hunter. 
As to the current Paul campaign, “any endorsements made or not made are done with our movement’s goals and efforts within the GOP in mind, whether some understand this or not,” according to Hunter.
In another post, Hunter reiterated that in the past Ron Paul voted for GOP Reps. John Boehner (Ohio), Dennis Hastert (Illinois), and Newt Gingrich (Georgia) for speaker of the House.
That did not mean Paul shared these lawmakers’ political beliefs. Their elections as speaker were inevitable, writes Hunter, and Paul wanted to work within the Republican Party to push his own issues. 
“Ron Paul is a member in good standing of the Republican Party. Ron Paul’s message is that he is against his party when it’s wrong,” writes Hunter. 
Of course, both these pieces might really be about son Sen. Rand Paul, not Paul pere himself. The second in particular mentions Rand at length.
Senator Paul endorsed Romney in an appearance on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show last week – a move that infuriated many Paul true believers. They burned up Twitter and Paul discussion boards with anger over what they saw as a betrayal.
Given that Rand’s dad technically is still running for president, the timing of the announcement indeed was a little ... odd. So was the manner in which Senator Paul implied that the announcement was some sort of joining of the Paul and Romney clans. He talked about “a kinship between our families.”
The Ron Paul campaign appeared taken aback by the degree of supporter animosity to this move. So Hunter’s works might be an attempt to calm those roiling digital waters.

17 comments:

  1. Ron's losing his fucking mind. His criminal sell-out son, Rand, doesn't want to be the only one to be disgraced...he wants his father to be disgraced as well. All this time and money, and all we get is one big 'fuck you' at the end. THANKS GUYS! GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MITT ROMNEY!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ron Paul has to know, with absolute certainty, that his endorsement of the soulless, fascist mannequin Mitt Romney would be as damaging to his own legacy -- and as unbelievable -- as his endorsement of Barack Obama -- or George Bush or Ben Bernanke or Leon Trotsky or William Kristol or Chairman Mao or David Rockefeller. Not only that, but he has to know that it would be completely ineffective among his supporters (although the hackable voting machines will make it look as if it was effective) and potentially damaging to the profoundly important Liberty movement he has helped to start. There is no way that he cannot know this; therefore, if he does eventually endorse Romney, I think the skeptics among us might have to be willing to entertain the possibility that he is being strong-armed into doing so (coincidentally, all of this is taking place right after Romney's "alleged" visit with the evil Bilderbergers; this is just an observation on my part, not an outright statement of belief, although the timing is hard to ignore).

    If nothing unusual is going on, then why did Tom Woods hide or remove his video in which he implores Ron Paul not to endorse Romney? Yes, it has been reposted by someone who made a copy, but that irrelevant.

    VMPJKWR

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom woods said he removed it because he has information, that he wasn't willing to discuss right now, that there is zero chance Ron Paul will endorse Romney. He said that this would be the only time that he would ever ask us to just trust him. The video where he said this can be found at The Daily Paul.

      Delete
    2. Thank you. I appreciate the updated information. If anyone could say that with certainty -- and be right -- it would be Tom Woods. I sincerely hope it is true.

      VMPJKWR

      Delete
  3. We should start campaigning for Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You...have...got...to...be...kidding...me...

    ReplyDelete
  5. And then there's this, from Doug Wead: http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/so-who-needs-romney/

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tom Woods put out a video urging Ron not to endorse Mitt (and also to replace the leadership of C4L) a few days ago.

    Then yesterday (or the day before), he took it down and on libertychat last night he said he was absolutely certain Ron would not endorse Romney.

    I really, really hope Ron Paul doesn't make some kind of not-quite-an-endorsement in Tampa.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why would Ron endorse Romney when he wouldn't endorse McCain?

    If he does though, that would be the end of it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rand's endorsement occured in the middle of the Texas Republican Convention and disheartened some Paul delegates. We were able to rally our troops and get them to stay engaged, but it took time away from other activities. We found the timing of Rand's endorsement interesting given that Ron would be speaking at the Texas convention and there were 155 National Delegates yet to be determined from Texas.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's gonna be something like this: Ron Paul is probably not going to endorse Romney in any direct or blatant fashion. However, he will not distance himself from Rand, and more importantly, he will give up on fight for the more libertarian republican platform. We have already seen the glimpse of this, when Ron said to his supporters to be "respectful" at Tampa convention. That meant "give up", for all practical purposes. He already sold out in order to secure the political future for his son. Practically. He does not have to say in the open: "I personally support Romney". He had already done what he had to do, by essentially sabotaging his own campaign (remember the bombshell "we are suspending the campaign" a few weeks ago).

    At the end of the day, Woods and all other Ron's fans are going to trumpet what a great and principled politician Ron Paul is (he did not "endorse", Romney after all), Mitt Romney will be satisfied that Ron Paul brigades were tamed and did not do much damage to him and his campaign (eg. by inserting some libertarian nonsense on Fed abolishing or against the foreign wars into the platform), and Rand Paul is going to retain his beloved status of a GOP apparatchik in good standing, eying 2016, with his neocon advisers and spin doctors, and his "responsible and smaller government" ideology. Did I omit something?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, you omitted the part that let everyone know you are a jack ass for disparaging Ron Paul when he has done more for liberty than anyone alive today. No, wait, that message is clear just from reading what you wrote.

      Delete
    2. there you go - a bleeding heart "Paultard"...:)

      Delete
    3. Jackass? Look in the mirror.
      RP is riding a wave of sentiment that has been a long time coming. No disrespect to the man, but no idolizing either.
      If he endorsed Mitt Romneycare over Geo. W. Obamacare, history will not let him off the hook. It will be a sad climax to his career.
      He can either stand by his principles or play politics as usual, which to a large degree is what got us into this mess in the first place.
      ciao

      Delete
  10. There's no point for Ron to endorse Mitt. What's in it for him?? His political career is just about over. Ron gains nothing and Mitt gains everything so what's the benefit?

    ReplyDelete
  11. and here lies the subtlety in difference between even Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell....Lew recognizes the futility of working with the system he accurately characterizes as "mafia like", though also to his credit he acknowledges the mafia would probably be superior in it's stucture/fairness...lol

    The new paradigm isn't going to be brought about by politics...it's going to be brought about by the failure of politics.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 'In another post, Hunter reiterated that in the past Ron Paul voted for GOP Reps. John Boehner (Ohio), Dennis Hastert (Illinois), and Newt Gingrich (Georgia) for speaker of the House.
    That did not mean Paul shared these lawmakers’ political beliefs. Their elections as speaker were inevitable, writes Hunter, and Paul wanted to work within the Republican Party to push his own issues.'

    Yeah--how did supporting Boehner, Hastert, and Gingrich work out for Dr Paul?

    ReplyDelete