41 votes

Time to tell which Paul supporters are intelligent enough to read between the lines...

Time to tell which Paul supporters are intelligent enough to read between the lines and which will allow their knee-jerk reaction be to abandon Rand Paul and call him a traitor to the cause of liberty.

So, tonight Rand Paul endorsed Romney for president. I think it was a good move on Rand's part seeing as party loyalty runs deep for the sheeple of our country. Deep down, however, I'm sure he knows it will garner exactly zero votes for Romney from the Liberty movement... in fact, with that in mind, I see no danger in the move at all.

After Romney loses in a landslide to Obama, Rand can run in 2016 without being blamed for contributing to the margin that caused Republicans to lose in 2012. I'm sure the faint of heart will abandon Rand, will cry foul play, will call him names, but that's ok. So far, he's given me no real reason to mistrust him. Besides, it's not like he says he agrees with his philosophy (as if he Romney has one) - just that they have similar family values and agree on like 4 policies (none of which Romney will actually do anything about).

In the grand scheme of things, it makes absolutely no difference at this point. No one is going to say "OH! Rand supports Romney?, he must be a true conservative, then" This is obvious Republican politics, and can only benefit the liberty movement at this point. I don't necessarily think it is a VP move, I think it's more far-sighted than that. I'm thinking 2016. Politicians think in terms of 4 and 8 years... constituents think in terms of months... MAYBE years at best... so it becomes hard to keep everything in perspective sometimes.

Let's take a moment and imagine it is 2016. Romney is as McCainesque, not-distant-enough memory and we have an open election for the White House. Rand Paul is nominated to run for the GOP nomination. Formerly a tea-party favorite and a champion for fiscal conservatism in the Republican party, Rand lost much of his support when he went against the party's nominee and supported writing in Ron Paul or even worse, voting third party for president in 2012! How could this man, who carried so much sway in tea party movement betray the GOP? This traitor to the party cost the GOP the 2012 election, and is the reason Obama got another 4 years. No one could ever elect this man. Paul Ryan it is! We must gather around and elect Rick Santorum, and with no incumbent in the white house, the GOP will win and put Marco Rubio in the oval office for 8 years! This is what all the hot heads want, right? Rand to be a perfectly conforming non-conformist in the liberty movement? To be "JUST LIKE HIS DAD?"

What I can't understand is how anyone in the liberty movement can not see how obvious this is. You'd have to be numb to reality to not read between the lines on this one. I for one, will be using this opportunity to separate my intelligent, Ron Paul supporting friends from my irrational, overly-emotional, non-conformist for the sake of non-conformity supporters of paul just because he is anti-establishment friends. I swear, if Ron became president half of these people wouldn't like him any more just because he would, by definition be the "establishment." It truly saddens me to see the lack of trust, and the lack of loyalty so many have.

Trey Stinnett
Co-Founder
RonPaulSwag.com

---UPDATE---

It is not my intention to say that anyone who thinks that whatever Rands plan is won't work, or anyone who thinks that playing politics won't work, or anyone who says that purist ideology is the BEST way to grow the movement, or anyone who says that the two party system is bunk, or that the only way to restore our liberties is revolution is, in any way, unintelligent. What I AM saying is this: if you are the over-reactors who are posting images of Rand with a for sale sign, calling him a sell out, or a traitor, or "Benedict Rand" you aren't seeing clearly.

We are at war. This war for liberty isn't a game of checkers, it is a game of chess - infinitely more complicated than any of us can know. There are patriots, two of whom I believe to be the Pauls, who are employing vastly different strategies in an effort to effect positive change toward liberty.

The way that Ron gained his popularity was by being ideologically pure, not making bunk endorsements, and not playing party politics. Ron is the ultimate advocate for liberty- a role model for anyone who wants to be a liberty EVANGELIST. However, evangelism isn't the only weapon we have at our disposal.

There are many in the movement, I dare say most, who believe the complete removal of our government is the only way to restore our liberties. There are those who exercise civil disobedience - ignoring unconstitutional laws and being thrown in jail. Those who advocate 911 truth while publicly supporting Dr. Paul despite the negative effects of their association. There are expats, off-gridders, protestors, gulchhers, seasteaders, and finally there are politicians.

Rand Paul is a politician. Just because he doesn't move in diagonal lines like a bishop or side to side like a rook does not make him a traitor to liberty! Recognize that we each feel called to employ a different strategy and that in-fighting, name calling, and jumping to conclusions for the sake of your own self-gratification as your own form of "purist" is completely counterproductive and can only benefit the statists.

I am glad to see so many comments by people who can tell there is more to play here. What saddens me I how quickly some are willing to throw one of our own under the bus - especially of something as insignificant as endorsing the GOP nominee over Obama.

I can't stress this enough: We need people fighting for our liberties on all fronts. If you don't think that playing politics is the best way, or even proper (and you're probably right), that's ok. But labeling someone a traitor because they are trying to fight according to the rules, is short-sighted and counter productive. There is a whole sector of this movement who believe that there is only one way to advance liberty and the moment that someone tries a different tactic they aim to tear down all that we have worked for. Don't be that person, please. Be above it. Be smart. Disagree with Rand's strategy all you want, but don't believe him a traitor to our cause.

As always, Jack Hunter says it better than I: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/06/08/ron-paul-is-becoming-s...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

We're not fighting the same battle

Trey does not understand that there is a big bunch of libertarians in this movement, who also have a normal sized brain, but who care far, far, far more about the ideas rather than a political victory.

So a lot of libertarians here don't wanna play this boring and perfidious game called politics, but rather would like to win this ideological battle going on: libertarian ideas VS Statist ideas.

Political victories should come as a consequence of winning ideological battles.
Endorsing that big statist is of no help at all.

Not the same thing

Being above politics and calling a brother a traitor because politics is the weapon he chooses are two different things.

Too many are in this movement JUST to be non-conformist, just to hate everyone. The reaction saddens me.

I don't hate you, I don't know you

I just don't agree with you.

And I am very happy that many here will not play that political game and are choosing to stand for the ideas instead.

It's not the weapon...

...it is how it is used.

I guess there's two different types of people here

Those that see political power as the end, and those that want to spread the ideas of liberty. Yes, Rand is helping his political future, but he is hurting the liberty movement. Every day he is out there stumping for Romney is a day he has to restrain himself from saying anything that contradicts Romney's platform. Every time Romney does something inimical to liberty, Rand's name will be right along side Romney's as a guilty party. Sooner or later, Rand will have to become an apologist for big government. He will say that we have to be reasonable, that we have build coalitions, that we have to pick our battles. But the result will be bigger government.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Exactly

.

Great Post

Also, anyone who does not trust Rand should take a close look at his record and career in the Senate so far.

Who forced NDAA and NCLB and many other things that the establishment tried to slip under the radar at least into open debate where the other pols had to go on record? Rand.

Who has spoken out publicly against TSA and homeland security issues and spending so dear to the rest of the GOP? Rand.

Remember, in endorsing Mitt - he was not endorsing Mitt against Ron. He was endorsing Mitt against Obama. You might ask "whats the difference?" and you would even be right to ask that. In most respects there isnt one. So it really does not matter who Rand endorses , except for one small thing -

A Rand endorsement is going to get the GOP to seat Ron's delegates at the convention. Even though there will not be enough of them to get Ron nominated, they WILL be voting on party platform and party procedure. They also play a part, indirect in many cases, but still an important part in helping determine where GOP national funds go to local races - and whether any of those funds and support go to pro-liberty candidates like the ones Ron mentioned in the latest email.

Any close inspection of Rand's Senate tenure thus far will reveal nothing but a patriot. But he is only one man, and he needs more help in Congress to achieve more than just forcing the statists to suffer open comment/debate on their schemes.

That means getting more pro-liberty members elected to the House and Senate. That means changing the official party planks to provide political cover for pro-liberty candidates. That means keeping the open invitation to all the right wing talk shows where you can spread a message of liberty that the hosts may not always like, but are forced to tolerate as long as the current political landscape means that the pro-liberty commentary is also nominally anti-Obama.

All of which means paying some lip service to the GOP nominee, which will be Mitt Romney.

It took the Neocons 30+ years to gain power. It will likely take the Liberty movement a while as well. Change in a nation of 300million+ people happens slowly.

This is a win, not a loss. This is laying the foundation to fundamentally alter the trajectory of the GOP over the next decade. And that is the key point.

So, everyone can either be angry and upset and feel betrayed - or they can help carry on the work of changing the GOP from a Neocon bastion into a stronghold for Liberty after Ron's retirement.

This is a choice every one of us has to make as individuals. I know where I stand, and I know what is at stake.

How about you? (directed to the people reading this thread, not the OP )

What I don't understand.....

.....is why he voted for sanctions on Iran. A "No" vote from him would not have changed anything. So why vote for it unless you believed it was the right thing to do?

Even if it would have been the swing vote, why would you not vote your conscience?

So, perhaps we can be sure that Rand supports sanctions on Iran. What other actions does he support towards Iran?

bravo frank

great post you get it.

Frank

I agree with everything you said. All of it.
And if TODAY was 30 years AGO, I would absolutely support this kind of process.

But it's now. And we don't HAVE another 30 years to do any of this.

THIS is why there are 2 types of Ron Paul people:

1. The ones who want to move things systematically, one step at a time through ideological change.

2. And the ones who know that this change MUST HAPPEN NOW. Or it never will.

I didn't realize it until writing this post, but I have crossed over from #1 to #2.

We are just, quite simply, out of time.

selling out your father so your later

political career goes to plan isn't something I look out for in a presidential candidate or a man.

Always thought Rand was a bit of a creep. He's obviously seen his father no vote all his life and decided that it's better to be expedient than moral if you want to get along.

He's a politician. I hate 99% of them. Ron was an exception.

There is a real possibility....

That Ron Paul was threatened, exposed to something, Rand Paul did not look good when he endorsed Obomney, there was something extremely wrong about this whole thing, maybe they told him they'll kill his family or something, something is going on and we need to get to the bottom of it.

lol!

You must really need the $$$ and buying base for your randpaulswag.com domain name you bought for 2016, am I right?

Co-opting, now in refreshing RAND flavor! :)

“Facts don’t cease to exist because they are ignored.” – Aldous Huxley

Rand Paul has been a good Senator

He did say that he would endorse whoever was the nominee. He has to play the game to a degree. I don't like it any more than anyone else on here.

Sure

But shouldn't he have waited until after Romney had won?

His timing sucks.

The two most important days in your life are the day you are born...and the day you find out why. -Mark Twain

The most appropriate post I see on Dailypaul

today. You are dead on, and yes completely intelligent. Too many of us on here are too quick to cut our own throats, man the elites are good and they expect us all to abandon Rand. Being awake is being awake, and you my friend are awake. I would give your post 10,000 plus ones if I could. You are the hope because you see the lies, but you know how the game is to be played, and that is the only thing that will win. Hate the game, not the players. Rand Paul has my vote because there are no more lies in this game of fools.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

What if this, what if that,..? I think you've been smokin..

to much of that five leaf green tobacca. lol.

I personally have never trusted Rand Paul. My gut has been telling me that ever since the day I was introduced to him. I’ve only put up with him because he is Dr. Ron Paul's son.

He could have come out and said "It doesn't look promising for my dad right now", but to utterly indorse Romney before his dad has officially spoken to his supporters, saying he’s out of the race? Give me a break! And to say the young people in this movement aren’t really a part of the conservative base anyway.

This better be a planned inside job to throw the Romney camp off base. Because if it’s not what will Rand Paul do to us next. I say "us" because this is NOT about his father it’s about we the people wanting our US Constitution back.

I'll be the first to give him my personal apologies, if I’m wrong.

The Winds of Change!

Jeb Bush is in waiting...

Here is the bottomline... we are spoiled. We found and fell in love with our very own Liberty Statesman.

Rand Paul, is our first Liberty Politician. We don't like politicians. They do painful things like endorse idiots, vote for economic sanctions against Iran, and walk lightly when we want principled foot stomping. Yes we have been spoiled.

The question is, will we settle?

Here is my answer...

Napolitano/2016

He is one of US.

Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

No doubt :)

I am with you on that...but aren't we so close to the edge that this opportunity might really be our last? I have hope...but 2016? I think some real tough decisions need to be made now to turn our country back around...can the good old USA survive another four years of this crap?, that actually started in the Bush era? It really is amazing how much America has changed since 9/11 and not for good! Oh well and Judge Napolitano? I like him, he seems very solid to me, even when Glenn Beck was the "golden boy" I always preferred the Judge...and Stossell seems good as well :)

Fear knocked on my door and Faith answered!

we will see

i think he is a sell out.i know its hard to get fucked over but wake up the sooner the better.we dont need rand paul why is it we need a leader with the last name paul?i for one dont need any one. i will be voting for Gary Johnson then i will sleep good at night.but go ahead and trust rand he knows romney is for the grass roots.

freedom420

Gary Johnson is an infiltrator and a Snake

He never talks about the Fed, even like a pandering prostitute, the way Newt does.

You are completely unhinged idiot.

After voting for Gary Johnson you will sleep very well. But in a NDAA detention center run by DHS.

BestRonPaulVideo, Totalitarianism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M#t=28m28s
BestVideo, Political Correctness http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8pzG02oxU#t=19s
Bestbook, Totalitarianism, http://www.amazon.com/dp/0759672229

Yes i was thinking this too

But think of the other play: The idea of a massive upset at the convention. Romney people wont budge our way and we wont budge theirs. What if Rands name goes in the nomination? Could enough delagates be convinced to nominate Rand? I know hes not Ron but hes a hell-of-a-lot beter then Romney or Obama. Its a play, and anything can happen come August.

Mathew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Thank You

Thank you for your small dose of common sense for us to read.

I'm a Professor, my name is Wall

What if some of us have never liked him from the get go?

Does that make us unintelligent? I never liked him, never thought he had anything in common with his father and didn't expect him to be like his father. They are two totally different beings and I didn't care for him. As far as him being for the liberty movement, I don't see it. Yes, he does have some good ideas and has started some good bills, but I think his character will fold even more once he gets more into the I Wanna Be President mode.

What he should have said is

What he should have said is that he would simply support whoever is nominated, he did not have to say Romney by name.
With that said, I too believe that he is playing politics to get ahead. I think that he isnt doing a terribly good job at appearing like a "saint" while doing it though.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.