Skip to comments.Rand Paul: Endorsing Romney was ‘compromising on strategy, not on principle’
Posted on 06/13/2012 3:10:53 PM PDT by markomalley
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul wants people to know that his endorsement of Mitt Romney for the GOP presidential nomination does not signify an abandonment of his libertarian political beliefs.
When Paul endorsed Romney on Fox News last week, many supporters of Texas Rep. Ron Pauls presidential bid took great offense. But Rand Paul said in an interview with Daily Paul Radio that he was compromising on strategy, not on principle.
People need to look beyond politics to look at whats most important, said Paul. I sort of take it as an insult that people think that somehow I dont support my father or havent done an adequate job in the sense that I have traveled thousands of miles and been to thousands of speeches both with him and by myself. And so I think theres probably nobody in the liberty movement that has done more to support my dad than myself.
Rand Paul cited a few reasons for his endorsement, including Romneys promise to give all 50 states waivers from President Barack Obamas health care reform law, and his support for auditing the Federal Reserve.
Well, if you support the 2008 Constitution Party candidate, you should respect Dr. Paul. Pastor Chuck Baldwin has described Dr. Paul repeatedly as one of the best men ever to serve in Congress.
Its a matter of record.
You are posting crazy garbage.
Some people who call themselves libertarians are pro-life, some are not.
But this is beside the point.
You said that Rand Paul is pro-abortion. He is not.
It's a matter of record.
see post #31, a direct quote from the libertarian platform.
And, I disagree in general, too. Most libertarians I’ve run across in everyday life or in the media are pro-choice.
Sen. Rand Paul is a good man. He is a tea party stalwart and a fiscal conservative, he is pro-life, he opposes gay marriage, and he behaves honorably in his public and private life so far as any of us knows. He is smart and well-educated, articulate and attractive. He is an up-and-coming conservative talent in the GOP. We are lucky to have him in the Senate.
Like almost every other prominent figure in the GOP Sen. Paul has chosen to publicly support the GOP nominee for President. In response to this you hurl baseless accusations against his character. This is disgraceful.
It is also destructive to the GOP and to the conservative movement and America. Every time a young conservative rises he is met with deranged slander from self-styled "purists" who claim that anyone who fails their unknowable, ever-changing litmus test is the devil incarnate. Then when no viable conservatives are available to run the "purists" shriek that the "GOP-E" has rigged the primaries.
I am sick of seeing unreasonable, dishonest fools such as yourself slander good people over nothing. This is not me trashing good conservatives, this is me defending them.
What is really pathetic, is that in your hissy fit, you have not even indicated what, if anything you believe in--or do you believe in anything?
Since the actual subject here is the strategy involved in conservatives endorsing Gov. Romney, here is a link to my own, virtual endorsement of Gov. Romney: Romney & American Conservatism. I would guess, from your "articulate" form of expression, that you must be an Obama man.
You are beclowning yourself to an epic degree here.
Read the following and learn:
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberalsif we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."
Guess who wrote that? Reason magazine, 1975?
Of course: Ronald Wilson Reagan. Ronaldus Magnus.
You need to go back to school, and pay more attention this time.
Is that what you were doing? I thought you were just spewing a bunch of love at Ron "nutcase" Paul.
If you choose to not accord people entitled to titles of respect, the titles of respect that they have earned
I don't respect Ron "frootloop" Paul and don't give a crap what his job title is.
What is really pathetic, is that in your hissy fit
Is that what it was? I thought I was expressing my opinion of Ron "nutcase" Paul.
I would guess, from your "articulate" form of expression, that you must be an Obama man.
I would guess, based on your adulation of Ron "looney" Paul, that you must be a 9-11 troofer and a Muslim apologist.
If now Rand Paul is being trashed on this site for trying to beat obama - it really renders me speechless how far gone some of you are.
Pathetic, and obama loves what you are doing BTW.
I think he’s a nutsack fruitloop that could lead the libertarian cause and get traction his father could not because he doesn’t look or sound like a nutsack fruitloop in the same way. This BLOWback PRINCIPLE!
I don't recall trashing him for that.
I stated that he's got a crazy father who has had a lot of influence on him.
While Obama was listening to revrun' Wright, Rand was listening to crazy old Ron Paul.
Just because Jr. endorses Romney, it doesn't suddenly make him a paragon.
Honestly, Rogue, it would help if you’d actually read what people write. Notice for example any conditional clauses in my early posts on this thread.
That said, libertarians are pro-choice. The exception doth not the rule maketh.
You should have just stopped there. And yes, you are.
No one has told you that even one single time, despite your repeated claims to the contrary.
Learn the concept of a "straw man argument".
Of course someone rigged the primaries. Look what we got.
The Bush family basically gang raped conservatism. Romney will deliver the killing blow.
I am sick of you and ALL gop/e elites that come here with their lies and misguided propaganda.
People have given their reasons for supporting Gov. Romney. You may not like those reasons; but I do not see where anyone--here--is telling you that you have to give up your principles!
I, personally, voted against Bush (for a Third Party) in 2004, and against McCain for Chuck Baldwin, in 2008. Frankly, I think Romney is markedly better than Bush or McCain; but there are also other factors that make this year different. We dare not see Obama reelected, for reasons similar to those that forced General Pinochet to move against Allende in Chile.
You have a perfect right to disagree, and vote for whomever you like. But some of us have a game plan, and I am not sure that any of those engaged in the name-calling that has gone on on this thread, do. (See Romney & American Conservatism.)
Thus I applaud Senator Rand Paul for taking a similar, if not exactly the same, tack.
You want to be treated with respect? Then show some to those who disagree with your choice.
You are just making stuff up and repeating yourself.
It is disgraceful for the reasons I’ve already explained.
Your threats just make it comical.