-15 votes

Rand Paul: I Will be Campaigning for Mitt Romney

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

strategic value

Romney's going to lose anyway (and Ron Paul isn't running!), so why not let Rand do what he does? Seems more important.

SteveMT's picture

What Rand did got voted down -1,144 times,.....

more negative votes than any other front page story in the history of the Daily Paul.

Rand can do what he wants, but that endorsement caused a lot of chaos and division within the Liberty Movement, which was totally unnecessary, IMO. I would put the same argument back to you. Romney is going to lose anyway, so why should Rand endorse a loser and split the 100% support he would have had, had he done the right thing and endorsed and voted for this father?

ecorob's picture

THATS the better question...


its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

Steve, +1, all good and valid points and thanks for replying

I see your point that it would have been MUCH better if Rand had endorsed his father instead of Romney. It would have solidified the backing of many of us on the DP and I think it would have sent a message not only to the establishment but also to Blue Democrats, Libertarians, Ron Paul Republicans and Independents that he could be trusted and he was someone we could believe in. Not a run of the mill party insider type that many feel he is now.

You make a great point that he has done the right thing when it's been hardest and didn't do the right thing on what would have been easy, endorsing the good Doctor, his father. But I think this is where the answer lies.

I think (and no I don't know this for a fact) Rand is playing the politicial game and counts on us to read between the lines. I think that at the end of the day he may have miscalculated the backlash he would have received. Don't forget that he did endorse his father and actively campaigned with him. But, I think it became unfortunately clear that Romney had it sewn up before the convention and the Republican apparatus would not have allowed Dr. Paul the nomination no matter what (look at what they did). I think Rand basically thought that by endorsing Romney when he knew the chance for a Ron Paul nomination were over and that Romney can't win anyway that he could make inroads into the party and further the message of Liberty by being a bit more 'mainstream'. By continuing to almost always vote Liberty values in the Senate, he could prove to use that he stands with us and holds our same values. I am not giving him a free pass and think we should closely watch his votes. The proof of his values will be there.

I think Rand knows that we are the most intelligent constituency out there and that we could figure out what he's trying to do. Doesn't it make sense that he would take a stealth approach the exact same way the campaign encouraged the stealth delegate approach?

Debbie's picture

He said in his interview with Peter Schiff that he promised to

endorse whoever the Republican candidate was before he ran for the Senate. He was very candid about this - he didn't just decide to do it. I am very glad he made it. He has introduced all the bills mentioned above plus S202 Audit the Fed, a bill to allow raw milk to be sold interstate, a bill to end the TSA (privatize airport security), and a couple of downsizeDC's bills like the Read the Bills Act and I think Write the Bills Act, which he promised them he would do if he got in the Senate. He also, remember, got a terrible amendment to the NDAA defeated, which would put you in GITMO even if found innocent! He did this by working with others in the Senate that none of us would want to work with. Regardless of his "endorsement" I'm so glad he's in the senate and I hope he runs for prez. His main concern, like his dad, is our economic situation, from what I've heard him say.


The peoblem is people here don't understand

People here don't seem to understand the definition of principle, nor do they understand what the core libertarian principles are and what they are not.

Walter Block said it best. "Rand Paul has not violated principle by endorsing Romney."

Get over it folks, an endorsement is meaningless....


Play the game Rand

I won't be contributing or voting for Romney though,or Obama for that matter. I'm still looking into the PA laws regarding write ins. Johnson will get my vote if Pa won't count my write in for Ron Paul.


was thrown off the ballot by the Pa GOP. You can however, cast a write in vote for Paul and it will be counted.

say it isn't so . . .


it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I'm what people consider "anti-Rand"

I like him as a person, but he's turning into an establishment hack.

Upped the thread to give it more coverage.

Rand cast his lot with the

Rand cast his lot with the Neo-Cons. That's his choice, just as it is mine not to back him and to vote for Gary Johnson.

Debbie's picture

The neo-cons would never have introduced any of his bills,

like Audit the Fed. And Rand is not running against Gary Johnson.


Romney will not take up Rand on his offer,

he is not supposed to win, that's not the deal. His job is to lose the election so he doesn't go to prison.

Romney & Son Investigated For 8 Billion Ponzi Scheme

Well Played

I get it. I'm reading through all this like a deep game of chess.

When Romney fails at election Rand steps in next cycle. With his public support of Romney, GOP, and all things "establishment" there's no way the establishment could try to sink him as "crazy", "dangerous", or "racist" like they tried with his father because he's in the same boat.

Hope to see him bring the entire Ron Paul platform with him when he runs for presidency; by then sound money, non-intervention, and small government will be the standard thanks to Ron Paul's recent success in lighting the brushfires of liberty.

Criticize Rand for playing ball now, but I hope you all will be thanking him for it in the years to come.

Oh, right

The top secret "strategy". Jesse'll be there too, and they'll let him bring Rons platform because he campaigned for Rombama.
Rand started campaigning for Rombama before the convention. He thinks we need an announcement now?
He's trying to deliver the RON Paulians to Rombama. Apparently will deliver SOME.

I find it so phucking

I find it so phucking hypocritical, that the republicans are bringing up booing God by the democrats, when the entire base of republicans at the debates booed Ron Paul bring up the christian tenant of do until others as you would have them do unto you.

"and the truth shall make you free"
John 8:32

Sickening, isn't it?!

Also - as we all know - Ron received a cold reception when talking about bringing our troops home. However, when Clint Eastwood basically mentioned the same thing, he got thunderous applause. I'm telling you, Republicans suffer from schizophrenia. Of course, the Democrats are no better.

I Unsubscribed to Campaign For Liberty Because of Rand

I kept getting emails, and postal mail, I asking if I am aware of this threat to our liberty, or that threat to the constitution,and on and on.

Rand Paul shouldn't ask me that or the rest you that supported Ron Paul, he should be asking Mitt Romney these questions.

Rand Paul is supporting Romney, and Romney is either clueless or just doesn't care.


That's what Rand is doing when he holds up the entire Senate to end some foreign aid spending. Doing Romney's bidding. That's what he's doing when he filibusters the Patriot Act. Doing Romney's work.

When are you guys going to understand that the feel good chin music means nothing and that what he DOES on the floor means everything?

Eric Hoffer

Means Everything? I'll play.

Means Everything? I'll play. Despite the claim of his backers that he is a "master" at Senate rules, he didn't object to three unanimous consent requirements: Iran sanctions (twice) and a Libya No Fly Zone. He also voted against cuts to Israel. Read the headlines my friend: Rand was on the wrong side of history on these very crucial votes.


I'll agree on the Libya no fly zone, and I'm uninformed on the Israel cuts. Have a link for me on that one?

As to the sanctions, I'll disagree.

He DID in fact stop unanimous consent:


Once he got his amendment included, he then did not vote to stop unanimous consent on the amendment that he had amended.

The language from this then got tacked on to the final version of the bill between the House and Senate, which Rand voted AGAINST, not for.

Personally, I've got no problem with sanctions on central banks (in fact, I wish someone would put them on OUR central bank), and while I recognize that this still irks a lot of us, he still got the language in to prevent anything within the sanctions being taken to authorize future military activity, which we are very fond of.

All aside, in the end, he voted against the final version of the bill containing the sanctions.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1540: is the final bill, I believe.

Eric Hoffer

Correction. He voted for

Correction. He voted for INCREASED aid to Israel not just cuts:


As to your point about Rand's selective votes on Central Banks singling out Iran, IMHO, I think you are really reaching there.

Beyond all these votes, it is obvious that Rand has deep, deep character flaws. A small case in point was the fact that he announced his support for Romney on the show of a man who had recently led the campaign to smear his dad. Would you do that to your father? Be honest now.


We have differing opinions. I'd have preferred no sanctions, but I'm not going to get twisted over central bank sanctions. Again, I think our central bank should get whacked all sorts of good.

And no, this wasn't increased aid to Israel, this was a continuation of a loan program. All it did was extend the program an additional 3 years. The bill did not increase aid levels.

As to my father? Yes. If I had a goal to achieve? If it was certain that it would further our goals and that the other course of action would be of no foreseeable benefit? If I talked it over with him first?

Yeah absolutely. Dr. Paul isn't crying himself to sleep over his son's endorsement. Hell, Carol even defended Rand! Some things are more important than pride man. To me, one of those things is getting Congress and the Senate moving in the correct direction. You don't just turn and do an about face in cases like this. To lead, you must first get the group to believe you're one of them and get them to follow, then you can steer the boat.

On the floor of the Senate, where it really matters, he's been doing some awesome things. Some things not so awesome, but nowhere near as bad as the other crap. For instance, can you name one bill he AUTHORED that you don't agree with?

Eric Hoffer

I'm actually a bit surprised

I'm actually a bit surprised at the small-mindedness of people on this site when it comes to Rand. It's true, he is not Ron Paul. It should be obvious by now that Ron Paul's roll was to educate, inform, and inspire. He successfully did that better than anyone on the Earth ever could have.

Rand's roll is different, he is trying to acutally WIN the presidency. Do you really expect him to go about it the same way that Ron did? Don't you understand what the outcome will be if he does? In four or eight years we will be exactly where we are now. Sure instead of having 4 million people among us as Ron Paul has stated we have, maybe there will be 6 or 8 million. But will that win us the election? Will that prevent us from being s#it on at the caucuses and the RNC? NO! He is PLAYING THE GAME TO WIN, people.

I don't buy the pro-Rand

I don't buy the pro-Rand claim that he is "just playing the game. How was Rand playing the game when he failed to lift a finger to help our delegates at crucial state conventions? How was he playing the game when he intentionally announced his support for Romney on the radio show of a man who only a few months earlier had LED the campaign to smear his own father?! Yes, Rand has made some good votes (and can be a useful conservative ally on specific issues) but he has some character issues and cannot be trusted. He is NOT one of us. Rand is...well for Rand.

If he's got no

principles what is the point of winning? He picked the "winner" and helped tank his dads campaign prematurely. So he can position himself to win?? Win WHAT??? Judge the fruit, man.

Don't try and decide 2016 just yet...

I have no idea if Rand is REALLY a sell-out or if he is just dling what is needed to move the ball further down the field. We shall see over the next 4 years.

However, Romney COULD win (I hope not) which could mean there's no chance for anything until 2020. That's a LONG time in politics and deciding whether one thinks Rand might deserve a vote is way premature. I won't promise to vote for him but I sure won't swear against it, as some on this site have.

Biden won't run in 2016 regardless. He's abysmal and knows it. Besides he's run before and failed so he's done after this admin.

Hillary might run in 2016 but again, 4 yrs is a long time in politics.

All the above assumes we aren't in a WWIII scenario where rights are further eroded and everyone with a pulse is sent to catch bullets in some god-foresaken place. Sadly, the assumption is appearing more shaky by the day.

Doug Wead said if Romney wins

Doug Wead said if Romney wins Ron could challenge him in 2016.

What??! And get in

and get in Rands (that political genius) way? LOL!!

Yea right.... Ron didn't

Yea right.... Ron didn't challenge Mitts in 2012... Wead trying to get you to vote for Mitts