It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Lately I am being bombarded with questions about Rand Paul endorsing Romney.
People are feeling betrayed. They are calling Rand a sell-out.
It might seem that way at first blush.
But Rand is not a sell-out, and Ron is not a quitter.
Let me try to explain what is really going on here.
My friend Dan McCarthy, editor of the venerable publication The American Conservative, put it this way:
"I'm an old Buchananite. Pat Buchanan always endorsed the nominee, no matter how painful it was. Because to not do so causes more harm to the holdout, than to the candidate."
It is at this point certain that, while we will certainly have an enormous impact on the national convention and the Republican party, winning the nomination is just outside of our grasp.
Our goal now, as ever, is to advance the "Ron Paul Revolution" in the best ways possible. That will mean continuing the tasks that once served our goal of winning the primary: to build strong local organizations that continue to recruit, train, equip, and mobilize grassroots leaders all across America.
By giving Romney the obligatory endorsement, Rand Paul just denied his enemies (and ours) a hammer to whack him (and us) over the head with for the next several years, should Obama be re-elected.
If Ron and Rand both refuse to endorse Romney and he loses narrowly to Obama, we would never hear the end of it. We would be villified by every other conservative group out there.
And nobody outside of our own circles would believe the truth, which is that we are the real Republicans and they, Romney and his fellow aristocrats, are the counterfeits.
Rand just did a great thing for us. I'm sure it was not easy for him.
He gave a purely obligatory endorsement, so that we can continue to carry on our fight to reclaim the American Right without being beaten over the head in the media for hurting the party.
Remember, Rand's endorsement compels nobody to act on it. And I haven't heard a single Ron Paul supporter saying they'll support Romney because Rand said so.
Rand did the right thing.
And as Jack Hunter explains:
"Ron Paul conceding he won’t be president and Rand Paul supporting the presumptive GOP nominee are but trivial anecdotes to the obvious and ongoing success of the most transformative political movement of our time: The rEVOLution."
He made a 10-minute video elaborating on this interesting point: that Ron Paul is becoming something more important than President. Watch it here.
Most importantly, what has been the reaction of Dr. Paul to his son's endorsement of Romney? I don't think there have been any media appearances about it yet, but I know for certain the elder Dr. Paul will stand 100% behind his son's decision.
In a webinar recorded back in October, now posted to Grassroots Central under the title Leadership with Michael Rothfeld, the last question I asked him concerned the subject of character. Mike explained:
"Character is what you do when nobody is watching... but character is also what you do when everyone is watching.
"What are you going to do if you lose?
"Are you going to quit?"
Are you going to call it a rigged game and give up? Are you going to let this historic campaign reduce to nothing more than a bump on the road to tyranny?
Or are you going to continue the fight, yield the battle graciously, and begin planning for the next battle?
Saul Anuzis, who always hated Ron Paul's movement and spent his resources engineering the primary to benefit Romney, recently lost his re-election campaign for National Committeeman... badly.
He had to take to the dais and call for the party to unite behind David Agema, his opponent, for national commiteeman.
I'm sure he would have loved to have denounced the convention for revolting against him, to tell us we're all a bunch of idiots, and so on.
But he could not. Not there on the dais. He would have done himself great harm by being anything other than a good sport in front of the state party. He had to concede to his opponent.
Rand had to endorse Romney. At this point, the longer he continued to refuse, the worse it makes us look.
Rand understood this, and did the right thing--knowing even that there would be this blowback within his base.
The Revolution will continue forward, and as we make more and more progress, more and more will be possible.
But don't blame Rand for doing what he was obliged to do. He was an remains a leader and a fighter in the U.S. Senate for Audit the Fed, against the Patriot Act, against Internet regulations, and so much more. He will be a leader in the freedom movement for years, perhaps decades to come.
Let me close with this thought:
Every time the campaign did something our supporters did not understand, the opposition placed stories in the media to sow fear and distrust within our supporters. It is psychological warfare, and a reality in politics.
The establishment would love nothing more than for our movement to shatter as the campaign comes to an end.
We will not give them that.
If you have trust in Ron Paul, and if you have trust in Carol Paul, have their trust in their son.
Originally posted by MrSpad
This is of course expected by most people as political move. However, many of Pauls followers bought into the whole Paul is not a politician and is different than all the other career politicians. When he did not get any support and started his delegate stealing scheme they did not see it as a political move to try and get some convention speaking time and instead saw a rebel trying to win any way possible. Their is a diconnect between what Paul is and always has been and what many of his followers have built him into. Today some of them have opened their eyes but, no doubt many will spin this to fit their version of how they want to see things.
Originally posted by hadriana
Sorry, that sound like CRAP to me.
Might work for the republicans in the mix, but I'd go back to my democrat ways before I ever, ever supported the republican establishment in ANY darn thing.
Originally posted by Swills
Originally posted by MrSpad
This is of course expected by most people as political move. However, many of Pauls followers bought into the whole Paul is not a politician and is different than all the other career politicians. When he did not get any support and started his delegate stealing scheme they did not see it as a political move to try and get some convention speaking time and instead saw a rebel trying to win any way possible. Their is a diconnect between what Paul is and always has been and what many of his followers have built him into. Today some of them have opened their eyes but, no doubt many will spin this to fit their version of how they want to see things.
Which Paul ya ranting about? Sounds like Ron but this thread is about Rand, so...
Originally posted by MsAphrodite
Seems like the Obama camp is busy at work. Even right here in this thread. Discount Ron Paul, discount his movement. Create anger among the Ron Paul base. Get them back on team Obama...
Seems like this is what the point of this thread is all about....
Maybe it has been their plan all along.
Originally posted by stanguilles7
Originally posted by MsAphrodite
Seems like the Obama camp is busy at work. Even right here in this thread. Discount Ron Paul, discount his movement. Create anger among the Ron Paul base. Get them back on team Obama...
Seems like this is what the point of this thread is all about....
Maybe it has been their plan all along.
Sigh. Just a big, big SIGH.
The one's 'discrediting' Ron Paul are the Republicans. They've been doing it for decades. Obama supporters could care less about Paul, and, in most cases, have never even heard of the guy.
Ron Paul 'fans' need to display a little more understanding of the issues they speak of if they want to be taken seriously.
Originally posted by MsAphrodite
Nice use of an indirect ad hominem attack. You folks are so very easy to spot.