That endorsement is still bothering me.........gggrrrr
To un-endorse Romney would be perceived as an endorsement of Obama.
Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.
Imagine Rand Paul in the primaries. If he had NOT endorsed Mitt then that would have been the issue to many people, now they have no argument. Now he would be able to focus on the issues.
If you plan on waking up 40 - 60 % of the registered republican sheep in the next 4 years, then he wouldn't need to act like a good republican.
On the other hand, we may need some of those sheep to fall in line as WE lead the way.
Water under the bridge. It's not what I would've done, or what you would've done, but you can't unring a bell.
What's done is done. Instead of trying to get some meaningless, symbolic contrition out of him...how about trying to do something positive, like help put Tom Davis's campaign against Graham together right now?
Or even try to get involved with a Rand 2016.
While you're busy being bogged down in the past....others are going forward to try to make history and kick some serious statist butt.
I've never been a big fan of Rand, and his endorsement didn't sit well with me (though I 'get' the reasons behind it), but to ask the guy to come out and "unendorse" someone is ridiculous IMO. What would that do besides make him look like a flip-flopper and a sore loser?
What's done is done. One cannot un-say their words.
A signature used to be here!
If you are a good person who cares about freedom in amerika you should feel bothered by this hypocrite and traitor.
The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution
Do we need posts on the dailypaul telling us we are "bad persons" for supporting
the only Senator going all out to audit the FED, audit the the pentagon, repeal the Patriot act, end the TSA, restore the 4th amendment, keep this country out of additional wars, cut foreign aid, end unjust property seizures, allow the interstate traffic of raw milk, etc. etc. etc?
Was it April 1st, because that would the only explanation I'd listen to?
He has hit him on foreign aid i believe. The endorsement sucked but i believe he PROBABLY made it because he was expecting the result we got last night. We will find out in the coming years if he truly stands with us. I don't mind if he plays the game to win as long as he truly fights for liberty especially if he manages to win. I hope he doesn't pull a ronald reagan and grow government under his watch. Only time will tell. The JUDGE as his VP and I will be convinced :)
Again, few here, certainly not me, had a major problem with the endorsement. The reason we call him a traitor is that he made endorsement when the Ron Paul legions were still desperately trying to win state conventions AND on the radio show of a man who only months earlier had smeared his dad as a racist.
I get that. I would have liked him to wait a little while longer as well... What was his motive behind that. Idk. You know, thinking about it, it kinda of made the GOP feel safe about us. Then we swept so many state conventions underneath the GOP's nose. Was this the plan? I wish I knew. We had a significant effect on the convention from what I saw. It was a moment I will never forget. Did this happen PARTIALLY not fully but partially because the republicans thought we gave up? Maybe. I wasn't happy about the endorsement, to be frank I was very upset. But Romney lost and now we look at 2016. The GOP can't blame Rand for losing, but blame theirselves for losing our vote. It seems sort of genius..However I won't bet on this yet. Rand has to walk the walk now.
OMFG shut up about this nonsense already ITS OVER!!!!
All paper money eventually returns to its real intrinsic value, zero. - Voltaire
It's only just begun, and it's not over for those in Ron Paul's campaign who told us to lay low, to hide our shows of support, to keep it to Ron Paul talking points; and to even call ouselves Romney supporters!!!
We needed to win the national debate, and everything coming out of our own party and candidate was saying sit down, shut up, we know you can win, but we don't want you to.
Rand's only hope is to jettison his earlier pandering to the social conservatives as represented by his idiotic "joke" that Obama's view on marriage is "totally gay." He also needs to declare war on the Israel firsters. I don't think he will, however.
People in this movement need to learn to play politics to some degree (sad but true) and Rand does this masterfully IMO. Words don't mean a damn thing, actions and voting record are what counts. Get over it people and re-focus. The only way to take back the GOP is to be part of it. Rand 2016!
A nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves.
At what point do you morally stop accommodating the status quo to gain acceptance or before you become that which you have disdained? It's a very slippery slope to embark upon and how Rand will handle himself in the next few years will be very interesting to witness. His endorsement of Romney exhibited a bit of self serving hypocrisy which I hope was a strategic and not a personal move. Time will tell but what ever the out come I do believe we will be dealing with Rubio next cycle, he already has the favored status which Tricky Mitt enjoyed this time.
There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.
You only listen to the words you want to hear.
I sat through the Rand speech in person at the RNC.
First time I ever watched a PAUL read from a teleprompter. It was disgusting. But as you say they were just words.
Words which could change nothing. Rand knew this as well. If he had deviated from the teleprompter they would have shut off his mic and blamed him in full for the impending loss of yesterday.
Rand instead played their game better than they did, knowing he had no influence one way or the other to get Romney elected. And he still criticized Romney after that speech.
Cut him some slack and pray that he pardons you and you non-corporate business from filing income tax and withholding when he begins his term in January of 2017.
Rand's actions in the US senate, actions where his vote could actually change the outcome or result... that is all that matters.
You are right, words don't matter.
Masterfully? You mean like his juvenile pandering "joke"
that Obama's views on marriage are "totally gay."
It was a joke, get over it. It's quite obvious what your ONE issue is....and we have no room for one issue voters. If you're looking for somebody as pure as Ron Paul you might as well just pack it in and call it a day right now.
As I said, it was lead in to a typically right-wing Republican talking point that heterosexual marriage as the foundation of civilization. Oh....if this is a joke, it certainly indicates a lame sense of humor.
Paul personally opposes same-sex marriage, but believes the issue should be left to the States to decide. If that's not good enough for you, then I don't know what else to say.
He does? I believe you but please provide evidence. Where does he say he'd leave it to the states? If he does take that position, nobody would know it. He certainly didn't emphasize it in his silly pandering speech on that issue:
Jason M. Volack
By Jason M. Volack
Follow on Twitter
May 12, 2012 7:50pm
Rand Paul Says He Didn’t Think Obama’s Views ‘Could Get Any Gayer’
Email 78 Smaller Font Text Larger Text | Print
ap rand paul 120512 wblog Rand Paul Says He Didnt Think Obamas Views Could Get Any Gayer
(Jay Janner, Austin American-Statesman/AP Photo)
Sen. Rand Paul mocked President Obama’s recent support of gay marriage on Friday, saying he didn’t think Obama’s views “could get any gayer.”
“The president recently weighed in on marriage and you know he said his views were evolving on marriage,” the Kentucky Republican said at Iowa’s Faith and Freedom Coalition meeting. ”Call me cynical, but I wasn’t sure his views on marriage could get any gayer.”
The comments, which generated laughs, were made two days after Obama announced that he supported same-sex marriage, which he had previously opposed, while adding he thought the issue should be left up to the states to decide.
Paul was encouraging support for his father Ron Paul’s long-shot presidential campaign when the conversation turned to the news of the week.
“He said the biblical golden rule caused him to be for gay marriage,” Paul said. “I’m like what version of the Bible is he reading?”
Paul went on to say that he’s not preaching hateful dogma against people, but added that he didn’t believe people should give up on their traditions.
“Six thousand years of tradition” combined with “anthropological” evidence shows “there’s stability in the family unit,” he said.
“The family is really important and we shouldn’t just give up on it,” he said.
Paul spoke against abortion as well as same-sex marriage.
“I think we’re in a spiritual crisis as a country,” Paul said, “and I think you’re going to need leaders beyond your political leaders.”
Paul had been advertised as the coalition’s “special guest” for its 12th annual meeting of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a socially conservative group led by former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed.
If this doesn't cut the mustard for you, I will find a direct quote from Rand Paul himself. I personally feel that homosexuals should get married so they could be as miserable as the rest of us. This is hardly an issue most of us are concerned with. We have bigger fish to fry.
He's silent (e.g. typically evasive and calculating) on the role of states in the link you provide. He merely says that churches and non-governmental organizations should not be banned (they aren't banned now) from performing marriage ceremonies. Here's what he said:
Gay marriage: Paul is opposed to same sex marriage, though he does not believe the federal government should outlaw same sex marriage if churches or other non-governmental institutions want to allow it.
My own position is the Ron Paul position that the state should get out of it entirely....but that is NOT the Rand Paul position at least if his speech is any indication. You may not care about the issue but to be perceived these days as evangelical apologist for the status quo is a political non-starter.
The only issue I care about is individual liberty. You're too concerned with the rights of a particular group, which in my opinion is the antithesis of individual liberty. I'm starting to get the feeling that the only reason you are part of the liberty movement is because of this one issue alone.
Are you interested in a conversation? Let's stick to what I said....and Rand said....please. As I said, I want to state to divorce itself from marriage, the radicail indivdualist position. The second best position is let the states decide. Is is Rand who advocates that group rights position e.g. heterosexual marriage should be defended because it is part of western civilization. He supports neither privatization nor (by his silence or evasion) states rights.
is a ridiculous institution anyways, it's a contract that no person would sign in any other aspect of their life. Why do you need the govt to put a stamp of approval on what you and your partner already have anyways? I don't, and I've been w my wife (yes I consider her my wife even though we've never "married") for 12 years and we have two kids as well and what we have is a private understanding that does not need anybody's stamp of approval. Yes I agree that the govt should be out of marriage all together, and if you feel the same way I can't understand why you even care what Washington has to say?
We actually agree.....though this whole tussle started because it was Rand, not you or me, who chose to interject himself into this debate. Strategically, that was dumb because it needlessly ties his fortunes to the Christian Right which is becoming a minority on this issue. That was my point. I'd prefer a candidate, like Ron Paul, who calls for kicking it over to the states or privatization and SHUTS UP about which form of marriage is superior or not superior. Rand foolishly did the opposite.
Hopefully he still has an opportunity to untie himself from those wackos! I hope his personal views do not reflect his political views on this issue and I finally get what you were trying to say.
The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution
Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul
... what Rand does. A buddy of mine put it good when he said "Rand s**t on everything his father created".
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: