Friday, June 8, 2012

Rand Paul to Campaign with Romney

Rand better have cut one helluva a deal.

The Hill reports:
Sen. Paul told Fox News he met with Romney when the GOP presidential nominee was in Washington recently and that the two had a "kinship" on several issues.

"I think we have a lot in common, a lot of things that we will be able to fight together on," Paul said.

He also said he would campaign with Romney.

30 comments:

  1. Really sad. Sad day for the Paul lineage. I'm sure this is to gain leverage for 2016, even a VP grab but seriously... why Rand, why? There is nothing in common with a warmonger.

    ReplyDelete
  2. First Rand's endorsement of the potential new Criminal in Chief and now this. Rand, I'm done with you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So Rand is auditioning for VP, I mean, campaigning for Romney, how sweet or rather, disgustingly sweet.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's a good move for Rand if he doesn't push it too far. Of coursed he has some things in common with Romney, but there are also a lot of disagreements, and I don't think Rand should sugar-coat that. He needs to retain his credibility with the liberty movement. Citing their agreement on family values is good move by Rand but what does that mean in terms of specific legislation.

    What Rand needs to get most from Romney is support for the liberty candidates. He needs Romney to get behind Phillip Massie in the Fourth District race in Ky. That's a Republican district, and the only thing that can defeat Massie is split in the GOP. Romney should be able to prevent that. He also needs for Romney to help rally Republicans for Amash in Michigan, Walter Jones in North Carolina, and Bills in Minnesota. There are probably others that I'm not familiar with.

    Meanwhile, it also wouldn't hurt if Romney would call off the dogs in states where Ron Paul people have taken over the leadership. Romney needs to tell his supporters to forget the sour grapes and concentrate on electing Republicans, including liberty candidates, in November.

    That's what "party unity" is all about. I'll support you, but you've got to get out and support my guys.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is an important moment for people who fooled themselves into thinking Rand offered anything for individual liberty.

    If you are an honest individual, now is your chance to redeem yourself by admitting your mistake. Now is your chance to save yourself from your own delusion by observing that people who believe that the "ends justify the means" as Rand would have to to support Romney in the name of spreading liberty, have never been actual friends of liberty. Or, what's more likely, Rand never actually gave a hoot about actual individual liberty in the first place. Either way, this is your chance to make good on your error by admitting it.

    If you're clueless or dishonest, then this is your opportunity to rationalize this event and somehow try to fit it into the idea that a person can be FOR something while supporting its antithesis. In this case, Rand can be FOR liberty while supporting Romney, a man who doesn't give an ess for it.

    The choice is up to you! I hope this thread gets filled with a lot of mea culpas, but I'm not holding my breath. I've seen some pretty deluded, naive optimists on this blog over the last couple of years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And of course the same goes for Ron. The GOVERNMENT is illegitimate. Has been since a convention in 1789 illegally decided to draw up a whole new constitution - an act for which they had no authority. The first of many compromises.

      Bridge: How can Ron talk about "Don't steal, the government hates competition" and accept a paycheck - "stolen" money - in good conscience??

      Nobody can "change the system from within". Withdraw consent. Attack it from outside. If we all do that, we'll win. We won't win by playing their game. Ron/Rand are fools to think otherwise.

      Delete
  6. I agree with Robb. Wouldn't we be better off with Rand as VP instead of a Christie or a Daniels or just about anyone else?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, but I can't go that far. Rand as VP would be a sell-out. As a Senator, Rand can selectively support Romney positions while disagreeing on others. As a VP candidate, he would have to endorse all of Romney's positions. That's a very different issue.

      Politically, it's not such a good move either. The VP candidate on a losing ticket gets a lot of attention but has never gone anywhere. It would only be good if the slate won, and right now they are the underdog. Besides, we're headed for another melt-down. Not a good time to be in office and have to take the blame for it.

      Delete
    2. Only if Mitt caught a bullet in the head. (but that assumes that Rand was for individual liberty - which, by his support of Romney indicates that he really, at the core, isn't)

      The sole responsibility of the VP is to cast a tie-breaking vote in the senate. Paul will do more harm because he'll associate the Tea Party with the Romney administration.

      The Establishment Party is the only group that wins with Rand as VP.

      Delete
  7. I never trusted Ran.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If Rand is picked for VP and runs with Willard, I'll barf. I already am barfing. But if he does do that, I hope soooooo much that RON Paul skips the Republicriminal Convention and runs on a third party ticket.

    Anonymous 11:37 hopes that Romney will endorse anti-Patriot Act, anti-NDAA Republicans. FAT CHANCE! Romney will endorse fellow fascists, fellow police-staters, and fellow socialist limp-wristed chickenhawks!

    ReplyDelete
  9. VPs are only as strong or as powerful as the Presiden. Just look at the differences between Biden and Cheney. Bush wanted a strong VP so we had a strong VP. Obama wanted a man who would sit in his shadow and that is exactly what we have. I am no fan of Romney, though I cannot fault Rand playing the political game. As much as I love Ron, and I admire the man greatly, I do wonder if he had played the game a little more, i.e changed his wording a bit, if he would now be running for president? IT's a question that libertarian minded people are going to have to ask themselves, since there is no way at this point in time that an ideologically pure candidate will ever win, how far are we willing to bend?

    ReplyDelete
  10. You're all focusing on what this means for Rand, but look instead at what it means for Mittens. He's trying to buy legitimacy by attaching the name Paul to his campaign. It's a great story to feed to the masses who never bothered to learn much about this "Ron Paul character" other than he's somehow a vague threat. Many of them will probably even miss that Ron and Rand are different. Having Rand by his side "legitimizes" any doubts that he "deserves" the nomination.

    So it's hugely valuable for Romney in the short term. Expect that he offered Rand something that sounds really good, but that may fail to materialize down the road once Romney no longer needs him.

    As others have said, Rand was never really on our side to begin with, so this doesn't change anything. But it's a handy way for him to demonstrate it to people otherwise on the fence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I'm against the Fed and the police state and the illegal wars. That's why I support Ron Paul."

      "Look at Romney, he supports the Fed and the police state and the illegal wars, and Rand Paul is campaigning with Romney."

      Not a very compelling argument.

      Delete
    2. I didn't say it was compelling to the people who actually understand what the two sides represent. I'm suggesting it's compelling to the people who blindly vote Republican because that's what they've always done. "I heard there was some sort of controversy between Romney and Ron Paul, but his son has now endorsed him so that controversy must be over and irrelevant now." When has it ever been about anything other than misleading the masses?

      Delete
  11. Rand makes me sick. I truly hope this is the end of his political career. He will not have his father's supporters (i.e. supporters of liberty) backing him in 2016.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Now all I need to do is figure out what I'm going to do with the money I would typically donate to Rand's next Senate race. Mulling some options: 1. Go on an extravagant drinking binge. 2. Buy more ammo 3. Buy a 1 way ticket out of this country.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thus far, the Rand apologists have been claiming he's a libertarian who's been pulling republicans along. Any more, it looks like it's the libertarians who have been fooled by Rand. No way a respectable libertarian affiliates with Romney.

    ReplyDelete
  14. We all knew this would happen, anyone thinking Rand was the next Ron was in a fantasy world. Still, it doesn't mean Rand is useless. He's the most libertarian senator ever, he still fights for liberty more often than not, let's pressure him to keep doing that. We need to hold his feet to the fire just like anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You Yankees have been had again, screwed with the big red, white and blue dick. You all just love your politicos lying and creaming all over you. Admit it, and look in the mirror and say " I just got screwed again, I love it". Go to Miami and get a tan and get drunk, because that is all you are going to get.

    ReplyDelete
  16. For all those who call Gary Johnson "Ron Paul lite", I give you Rand Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rand Paul's endorsement of Romney is probably Rand's attempt to be a part of what C.S. Lewis termed The Inner Ring: http://johnrepici.com/Misc/TheInnerRing.pdf

    "Of all the passions the passion for the Inner Ring is most skilful in making a man who is not yet a very bad man do very bad things."

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rand has just taken himself off of the sidelines and jumped into the fray. He's made himself more powerful in D.C. as the perception in the party will be that he represents the liberty movement though that is not entirely true as evidenced by the comments here. The issue to me is, what is Rand's motivation? Is it to wield some influence to counter the neo-cons who it seems, have already co-opted Romney? Is it to advance his own status in order to further his own libertarian agenda? I guess I'll have to wait and see, watch how he votes in the future and hope he stays on course. I'm not ready to jump off a bridge over this and I'm not gonna go off half cocked and vote for Romney either...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Party and power over Principals as usual...and the left/right paradigm beat goes on...and on...and on.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I expected this from Rand. I'm not shocked or disgusted since I have assumed he was a political douche from the beginning. If Ron supports Romney in the end, I will lose all hope for humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think that this was the only logical way Rand and the entire Ron Paul movement could ever get a foothold in the establishment. It seems that Rand seized the moment and regardless, if Romney dies while Rand is VP, wouldn't you feel safer with him as President? There are good aspects to this too.

    ReplyDelete