90 votes

Peter Schiff Speaks With Rand Paul About Romney Endorsement

http://youtu.be/ygwZHpTUmaI

I think Rand does a great job explaining why he chose to endorse Romney and I support his decision. But I want to hear from you. Vote up or down or comment on how you feel about his explanation.




Comment viewing options

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

Let's compare and contrast

Question: Do you endorse Mitt Romney as the Republican Party nominee?
Ron Paul: Well, I can't endorse some of the things he says he stands for, you know, like more government spending, or indefinite detention. So no, I think Mitt would have to come over more to the liberty side for me to endorse him.

Question: Do you endorse Mitt Romney as the Republican Party nominee?
Rand Paul: Sure. He's better than Obama and maybe we can get some legislation passed.

The problem is, the Tea Party tried to do it Rand's way and John Boehner blocked them.

I understand what Rand is doing, but disagree that he should do it.

The two party state is not a path to liberty

Ron Paul's work in the campaign was hardly for nothing if Paulis don't take control of the Republican Party or influence the Republican platform. Those things may happen and may be useful, but Paul's work in this campaign opened people's eyes and changed their minds. With principled consistency and tireless persistence, Ron Paul drove the ideals we cherish into the mainstream discourse and introduced millions of people to them. Many of these people have never identified with the Republican Party, and many never will. The Paul campaign is not a Republican Party building exercise.

Romney is consistent

He has stated that he will continue to support the criminal activities of the bankers and strip all Americans of their God-given liberties. Rand Paul supports this man and has betrayed those that he swore to represent and protect. The Republican Party is a mere corporation, and, like all political parties, is an unconstitutional entity as it invites faction.

Schiff @ 6:30: "you can't be like your Father"

SAD

reedr3v's picture

In a direct way Peter knows from personal

experience what it is to follow a father of pure uncompromised principles. He did not choose Irwin's direct activism but forged his own distinct approach to furthering liberty ideas. Perhaps this is why he said this to Rand. On Rand, the timing of his announcement gave me the most trouble. I will be in wait and see mode for the continuation of his career. I vote only for Ron of course.

I know alot of us were hoping he would be

and ok so he's not like his father, but at least don't stab him in the back, like you said the TIMING, how did he expect that to be seen as anything but a stab in the back?

I THINK

i like what kokesh says about all of this

http://tinyurl.com/cfkwfwg

"mitt motherfucking romney"

jack hunter el hippocritto

"and if mitt romney becomes the republican's presidential nominee in 2012 conservatives will need to find a new party"

SUCH HIPOCRASY!

"He's this eccentric Ghandi-Like figure that you cant touch with the normal bribes that people respond to."
the man Doug Wead on DR. RON PAUL

I really like Adam. He's a no

I really like Adam. He's a no compromising hard ass!

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

We were doing the rope-A-dope until Rand cut the rope and sent

us flying off the stage.... I'd say he threw in the towel but that's Ron Paul's decision.

how can you, in one hand, say were going to have a presence to change the platform in Tampa and on the other hand say we lost?

the ole bait and switch line doesnt work on libertarians... THAT IS WHY WERE LIBERTARIANS!

Rand is only acknowleding the AP count for delegates.. WHY?

Ron Paul hasn't spoken up whilst his son continues to hand the power of the movement over to the media to control the RNC.. WHY?

All I got to say to Rand is go get em' boyscout, now youre one of them.. maybe you'll even be better than Lee Atwater.

R.I.P. Right Hand Lead... so much for the Rope-A-Dope.. ;(

p.s. Rand, it isnt just a lot of us that will be mad at you for this... it is ALL OF US .. and we are not mad, its worst for you, you never had the authroity to make decisions for ALL OF US and we now RESENT YOU for thinking you had... since when do you have power over this movement?

Goes to Show just how thin the line is between FREEDOM and POWER

Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right. -Henry Ford

the GOP

needs Paul supporters to win this election and they know it!

THEY NEED US MORE THAN WE NEED THEM, and so do you Rand

Don't reward them

The GOP does need us to win. That is exactly why we should deny them. It would be one thing if they played fair and sincerely adopted at least some of our more important issues. Instead, they mocked Ron and the movement and when that didn't work defrauded Dr. Paul of his victories and changed the rules when it looked like we would win.

Doesn't Rand get it. Any "concessions" Romney promises him mean *absolutely nothing*. If the Establishment can just jolly us along or neutralize us until the election they are counting on the Liberty movement, deprived of leaders - including Rand until now - to just fade away or be co-opted into nothingness. And they will be right.

Don't play their game. You can't compromise with Evil. We should take our money and activism elsewhere.

Thetis

Why Barack Obama Should Inspire Us!!!

Okay, has the cheese slipped off my cracker? Has the final Christmas Tree light burned out? Am I nuts???

Nope. I can't stand Barack Obama or what he stands for. But ...

He has given us EVIDENCE OF WHAT WORKS!!!

When Obama had a Pelosi-run House and a Reid-run Senate, did Obama play it "safe?" Hell, no!

They went for the JUGULAR. "You have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it," said Pelosi. They passed that blatantly unconstitutional piece of crappola.

And yes, the Republicans took over the House in the next election. BUT ... they got their pride and joy passed! Let the courts iron it out, they say.

The point is this: the Marxist Obama did not achieve what he wanted by playing footsies. He went RADICAL and he got what he wanted.

The difference between Obama's Marxist ideas and Ron Paul's libertarian ideas is that the majority of Americans do NOT like Obama's ideas, once they become aware of them, and they generally do like Ron Paul's ideas.

This is yet more evidence that the behind-the-scenes Ron Paul supporters' strategy of taking over the GOP, being elected as delegates, and going to the national convention to promote the "RADICAL" idea of liberty -- that idea that made America great in the first place -- is the way to go because it can be ... EFFECTIVE.

Maybe this is what the GOP insiders are afraid of. Maybe they have put pressure on Rand.

And maybe, just maybe, the delegates should just cut all the b*llsh*t ... and NOMINATE RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!!!

When you have a chance to take your shot, take it.

Let the chips fall where they may.

Ron Paul for President's picture

Peter,

What were your chances of winning your race? Slim

Did you concede your race before the votes were cast? NO

It is not over until the convention is over.

The Lesser of Two Evils

As others have pointed out, Rand's endorsement and his explanation is essentially saying, "We have to vote for the lesser of two evils."

No, actually, we don't.

If political candidates cannot EARN our vote by DEMONSTRATING they walk the walk when it comes to liberty, then WE DO NOT HAVE TO VOTE FOR THEM.

The lesser of two evils is, by definition, evil.

We deserve BETTER. We deserve to have the choice of two (or more) statesmen, not the lesser of two evils.

If any particular political party cannot EARN our vote, they do not DESERVE our vote.

The bottom line is this: Does any particular action, that we might evalute, move us TOWARDS LIBERTY or not?

Endorsing Romney, a man with no politican principles, much less libertarian principles, is a BAD move because it does NOT move us towards liberty.

Overall, I still support Rand because an endorsement is not as meaningful as actually proposing and voting on legislation.

BUT ... he has one strike against him. Many more, and he will need to be tossed aside for a better player.

Betrayal and Desolation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH1AHgPw56Y

I haven't registered an opinion on the merits of Rand's announcement other than to urge we carry [R]on undaunted. I would never be part of any lynching. Until it has been demonstrated that our cause has been purposely sold out by any of our allies I will give them the benefit of the doubt and hold steady. In fact, if I become convinced a sellout occurred I would still personally remain steadfast.

I believe one should endeavor to get along, but never 'go along' for this objective. Expediency is never justifiable reason to compromise faith and principle. To articulate such reasoning may be part of the head fake, but to ever admit such rationalization as if justification in truth is itself a sellout. A lukewarm empty endorsement as the price of cover for delegates or for a good, enforceable deal might have been a worthwhile play. I doubt it, but I understand the rationalization that gets good people into these trades. Don't ask me to subscribe to the transaction as, personally, it is not my style. It would've taken an awfully good particular plan to endorse such a notion as strategy. It would be hard to believe any involved would be so naïve as to not know what and who they are dealing with.

Bottom line: There is no reason to let this divide us. As for me, I will never choose to be on the wrong side.
 

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

William Pitt, The Younger, speech to the House of Commons

Rand is willing to sell out...

We don't have to.

Think about this... Why would fold like a bad hand and support someone (Romney/RNC) who blatantly cheated, lied and even openly used violence against us and then give him our votes! That makes no sense.

Romney has already openly proven he will do anything to shut down our movement when it interferes with his bosses' plans.

No matter what Rand or even Dr. Paul do or say, I will never give in to Romney. He is a terrible human being and does not provide any upside to Obama or anyone else.

The GOP 2.0/Liberty Movement needs to continue to win local and state offices all over the country and remove from the power the cancerous virus that is the current Neo-con GOP.

This November I will write in Ron Paul or vote Gary Johnson, I haven't decided just yet.

One thing is certain, I will vote for Micky Mouse before I vote for Romney.

GOP 2.0 - the upgrade is coming!

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Endorsing Romney is politics

Endorsing Romney is politics as usual, which less and less Americans are supporting. We are a crisis away from a major change in American politics, where we will either sweep the crap out of one or both parties in one swap and take them over or discard them both and start a new movement. This playing ball with the establishment is tired, old and does nothing, and often does nothing but turn you into part of it. It's kind of like the Borg.

Romney has been on both sides of literally every issue. And Romney and Obama are both backed by the big banks, and are for more torture, more war, more loss of liberty, more giveaway trade and more printing.

Endorse Romney all you want --

But don't vote Economic Sanctions against Iran, its an act of war.

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

To endorse Romney is also- -

an act of war.

So you sold out in 2010 to get into the party...

I like how he justifies his support of the nominee by saying, "this was done back in 2010..."

Should do things right the first time...

How about cutting the Education dept? Energy dept? Spending by 1 trillion... crickets.

Hey Rand, I have a bill out to cut spending. Oh wait, it doesn't mean $%^# unless you PASS it. You can get on your soapbox when you have passed any of the bills you have offered up.

Voters pan both Obama and

Voters pan both Obama and Romney on economy. Swing voters are not impressed with either candidate's plans for the economy, a poll shows.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/poll-shows-swing-voters-d...

Your so right

The truth is if the truth got out to main stream news.
TRUTH
the Independents and the Disappointed Democrats.
would vote for Ron Paul.

what true citizen would vote for Obama or Romney.

check out Glen Greenwald he backed Obama, and from what I can see his Constitutional and civil rights layer background and strong personal ethics make a Obama backing a NO GO.

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/12/what_might_cause_another_911...

read the drone story does that sound like a Democrat ready to sell out just to have a Democrat in the white house?

OV

Just want what seems to be missing, Truth and Justice for ALL
What is fraud except creating “value” from nothing and passing it off as something?

For everyone who thinks Obama

For everyone who thinks Obama would be better than Romney, carefully weigh Rand's opinion about the difference between Romney's and Obama's regulatory appointees. Romney will not be good, but at least he would never appoint a Sotomayor or Van Jones to a position of power. While Bush was a terrible President, his justices are the more conservative on the Supreme Court. Clinton's and Obama's appointees are the ones who consistently render the Constitution a blank piece of paper.

You are missing the Foundational Point.

Obama=Romney=Goldman Sachs=The Military Industrial Complex.

Hmm...

Let's take a trip down Memory Lane. Let's go back to the year 2000. Bush vs. Gore.

Do you think if Gore had become president, he would have chosen different Supreme Court justices than Bush did? Of course, he would have. Would they have been more radical left? Of course. Maybe even environmentalist wackos? Yup.

And so what?

With Bush, we got the PATRIOT Act. We got indefinite detention, which has now led to NDAA. We got big government spending, ultimately leading to TARP, which led to Obama's huge spending. We got spying on Americans, which has now lead to tens of thousands of ARMED drones flying over America, spying on and possibly attacking people who have not done anyone any harm, much less been charged with any crime.

At the end of Bush's time, were we moving more TOWARDS liberty than if Gore had been president?

Just because Bush wasn't Gore and Romney isn't Obama does not mean that is a GOOD thing.

Well Said!

This is the whole argument right here...

Never mind all the rest, We must stand up and appose both terrible sides of the one party system if we are ever going to get a chance to clean up our political system. Its about more then getting control and power within governing bodies, its about real access, real choices, and making free elections possible!

you do this by stirring up the public, educating them, changing the culture, and taking a principled stand. Have we learned nothing? Have we forgot how we got here?

Don't fall for the illusion, we will NEVER be an active part of the establishment, we will simply be window dressing kept around for the good PR, money, and votes we bring.

But are we really going to

But are we really going to sit here and pretend that if Al Gore was president and 9/11 happened that the democrats, who are traditionally the war party as the good doctor points out, would not have passed the PATRIOT Act or the NDAA? Bill Clinton bombed Iraq to divert attention from the Monica Lewinski scandal. The current NDAA was proposed by Obama allows indefinite detention for American citizens and got by-partisan support. Also, footnote, guess who was a Senator to lead the charge AGAINST the NDAA and to call for the repeal of the PATRIOT Act? Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.

We are not going back into the Trance.

The Establishment GOP = The Establishment Democrats. Once you are conscious - you realize it is not about the Party Label, it is about Liberty. A R-evol-ution shifts the paradigm and wakes people up. Liberty versus Tyranny.

Yes I'm fully aware of the

Yes I'm fully aware of the one party system. It doesn't change the fact that there are those who believe in a lot more government and those who believe in a load more government.

Either way,

you get more government.