Quotes of the day

posted at 9:31 pm on June 9, 2012 by Allahpundit

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Friday he would be honored to join the Republican ticket as the vice presidential nominee, just one day after he endorsed Mitt Romney’s campaign.

“A year, year and a half ago, I was a physician in a small town, and it would be a great honor to be considered as a vice president for the Republican Party,” Paul told CNN. “I think that would be something that anybody who said otherwise would not be being truthful.”

But the first term senator said he had not discussed joining the ticket with Romney, whose vice presidential search is already underway.

***

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney last night is igniting a fury of rage from his father’s hardcore fan base. In a sort of libertarian version of Bob Dylan going electric (ask your parents), the Kentucky senator’s enthusiastic endorsement of Romney has Ron Paul forums fuming with cries of “Judas” and “Benedict Arnold.”

“Rand is dead to me,” wrote, Ruffusthedog at the Daily Paul, a heavily-visited pro-Paul website. “He should have never done this.” “Rand Paul is a sell out,” user Alxnz exclaimed. “He just lost my vote in 2016.” “All he had to do was not open his mouth,” wrote user Conalmc. Others even took their anger out on Ron Paul himself. “What will it be Old Man Ron? Will you be forever remembered as the leader in the greatest liberty movement since 1776, or will you go down as Benedict Arnold incarnate,” threatened lionsuar7788. “We will never vote for Romney or your flimsy son.”…

On both forums, the tide of incredulous—and highly personal—comments continued ad nauseam. With Ron Paul’s diehard supporters being one of his most formidable assets, especially when it comes to winning straw polls or online money bomb fundraisers, you’ve got to wonder if Rand Paul risks jeopardizing the family brand.

***

[W]hile Paul is a helpful validator for Romney, endorsing Romney also gives Paul a level of mainstream credibility he lacked during his 2010 Senate campaign. It shows he’s willing to be a team player when it counts, and puts him on the safe side of any speculation over a third-party libertarian push.

And that could be crucially important or Paul if he decides to seek the White House himself in 2016 or beyond – as any number of operatives believe he hopes to do.

“Rand’s endorsement of GOP nominee Mitt Romney clearly shows that in spite of those who try to marginalize him, he has keen set of political instincts and is very much aware that a successful national run will require more than just his father’s loyal following,” said one Republican strategist close to Paul-world.

***

[N]o true libertarian, no true friend of liberty, and no true blue Tea Partier could possibly even consider, much less actually endorse or approve of, the Father of Obamacare, Big Government tax and spender, Republican Mitt Romney.

Especially the son of Ron Paul, who has no excuse.

Especially a medical doctor, who has even fewer excuses…

Vote Libertarian – the only political party that embraces the same core value as Dr. Ron Paul: Liberty!

***

Rand has never been the devout libertarian that his father is. He is certainly a libertarian-leaning Republican, and while he can often be a good ally to libertarians in the Senate, he is still first and foremost a Republican. And as a Senator he has much less latitude to diverge from the party line and needs other Senators to cooperate with him.

Because of this, the chances of him endorsing Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson were somewhere around one in one billion. While such an endorsement would make many libertarians happy, it would end his life as a Republican. It would mean that he would have no party support whatsoever come re-election time. It would alienate him from the party and mean he would get nothing accomplished in the Senate…

So while it may seem offensive that a liberty-minded person would endorse a candidate who supports such awful things as the PATRIOT Act and NDAA, it actually makes a lot of sense. I’d even go so far as to say it may be a price worth paying. If the endorsement solidifies Republican support and earns him points with the party establishment, it means he could have more freedom to chart his own course in the Senate.

***

As we have seen over the last few months, the Paul forces have the very real ability to not only disrupt the choosing of delegates to the Republican National Convention but also influence (and change) the leadership at various state parties around the country.

Does Rand Paul endorsing Romney mean that the Paul acolytes will immediately cease and desist in their efforts to have their views heard? No. But more so than most people who support a politician, the Paul folks listen to Ron/Rand and follow their wishes.

Rand’s endorsement then — when coupled with Ron’s email to supporters earlier this week urging politeness at the national convention — are a net win for Romney because they virtually ensure that there won’t be a genuine insurrection led by supporters of Paul at the convention. (Expect Romney to give Rand/Ron speaking slots at the convention too in hopes of throwing a sop to the Paul acolytes and push the theme of inclusion and big-tented-ness.)

***

At the Texas GOP Convention, Ron Paul addressed the issue that frustrates many people (including me) who like and respect him personally: the vocal, unbending supporters who were/are unwilling to accept any outcome other than Dr. Paul in the White House…

On the first day of the largest state convention in calendar year 2012, he told his supporters that upon arriving in Tampa for the Republican National Convention, they were to “be respectful.”

The bottom line is that Dr. Paul and his son do not appear to be trying to blow up the Republican Party. They seem to realize that they have a better chance of advancing their goals in the long run by working within the system. For all the talk about being revolutionaries, Dr. Paul wants to see his movement become mainstream.

This has always been where Dr. Paul diverges from his most hard-core supporters. They often want an all-or-nothing approach, leaving them marginalized. Dr. Paul is willing to take what he can get now and come back for the rest later. This is not “selling out.” This is “pragmatism,” which does not have to be a dirty word.

***

I realize it’s frustrating to hear Sen. Rand Paul endorse someone besides his father — especially a corporatist empty suit who flirts with Keynesianism and who shepherded key aspects of Obamacare into existence as governor of Massachusetts. But before you pounce, renounce and otherwise burn all the bridges, consider that the revolution can be evolutionary

If that involves making nice with Mitt Romney, so be it. Let’s not let our zeal blind us to the “adjacent possible.” In other words, don’t bulldoze the inroads you’ve made out of impatience or cynicism. You have moved the trenches forward. And having a strong liberty contingent close to any president means that president has a conscience speaking directly into his ear every single day…

There is a very strong argument to be made for letting the body politic bleed longer. That is, one could distance oneself from Romney, hoping he loses to the abysmal Obama in 2012. Then Rand Paul could run in 2016 with the support of both mainstream Republicans and Ron Paul revolutionaries. This is a fine idea except for the bleeding. That is: How much more can the Republic take of a Barack Obama administration? I know, I know. Obama and Romney are little different from your perspective. But consider that a Romney administration that includes Paul’s people — plus a well-composed Congress — could result in something really different from the rapid decline Obama is presiding over. Wishful thinking? No more so than counting on the stars aligning for a Rand Paul revolution four years from now.

***

If the movement is about Ron Paul, then it never had a future. It was born terminally defective. If it’s about ideas and ideals, it will never die. The only Party in which it has a chance to thrive, though, is the GOP, and the GOP must nurture at least some of Paul’s ideals if it is to have any useful existence of its own…

Whether or not Paul’s supporters can vote for Romney, they have to find a way to remain within the GOP even if Romney is the candidate. If they leave, they’ll find it hard to impossible to get back in, and if they don’t get back in, they’ll have to find a third-party home. That’s the path to complete irrelevance. They don’t have to like or vote for Romney, but they need to get more of their people in statehouses and Congress, and the easiest way to do that will be as Republicans.

If they don’t find a way to square that circle, they’ll be a historical footnote, and America will be the worse for it. They might start by not spitting on Rand.

***

***


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8

His foreign policy views wrt Iran are very realistic. On some level, that is why they scare the Right so much. Realism recognizes the primacy of nation-states, and the necessity of recognizing constraints on resources when considering how to deal with foreign policy issues. RP has said that it’s natural for Iran to seek a weapon. Well, as sovereign state surrounded by questionable characters like Russia, Iraq and the Af-Pak theater, of course they want a bomb. Even if the Islamists weren’t in charge, Iran would still seek the bomb. And RP claims we’ve blown our credibility with other nations over Iraq, and we cannot afford to handle an invasion of Iran by ourselves. What part of that do you disagree with?

JohnGalt23 on June 10, 2012 at 11:46 AM

It would be quicker for me to tell you what part I agree with, and here it is:

John Hitchcock on June 10, 2012 at 12:31 PM

RedCrow on June 10, 2012 at 12:26 PM

That was well said, but I would disagree with you on one point. It wasn’t what you said but the (you understood (grammar term)) false premise JohnGalt23 provided in his listings, which you patently accepted to disagree with him on a different issue. The US is not now, nor has it been, “the world’s policemen”.

John Hitchcock on June 10, 2012 at 12:38 PM

John Hitchcock on June 10, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Your second sentence was a bit mangled. (Happens to me sometimes.)

I’m not sure “the world’s policeman” is a false premise. Can’t one argue that we’ve been basically the first line of defense in Europe since WWII? Our military presence has allowed the socialistic policies prevalent in Europe today to fester (again, like OmahaConservative’s toe). (Let’s not forget Japan.)

I’d never argue for isolationist policy for the US (as I think Paul does). But, I do think that it’s time we make sure we’re “gettin’ somethin’” for our trouble.

RedCrow on June 10, 2012 at 12:49 PM

RedCrow, I could very easily write a long-winded dissertation but I don’t think that’s necessary as it wouldn’t change anyone’s mind anyway.

“Forward, active defense” is far better than trying to throw the invaders out of Vineland, NJ. Buffer zones are very useful in protecting more valuable real estate. If you can keep the crack dealers out of your neighborhood, you don’t have to get them off your block. And you definitely don’t have to yell “get out of my yard!”

That should do in explaining my position.

John Hitchcock on June 10, 2012 at 1:01 PM

John Hitchcock on June 10, 2012 at 1:01 PM

I couldn’t disagree with anything you wrote, there. I’d simply add that balance in foreign policy is an important, if elusive, thing. (Battleships don’t grow on trees. :) )

RedCrow on June 10, 2012 at 1:05 PM

I’m so loving this.

I suggested months ago that Rand Paul for VP is a genius move by Romney, and I still hope he does it. It doesn’t get him a state (he already has Kentucky, for what it’s worth), but I thought it would get him the great majority of his Dad’s kook supporters … looks like I was wrong about that.

There’s a lot of time left, but with Paul supporters joining the nutbag fringe evangelical voters in saying “I will never vote for that Mormon Romney”, I’m not sure how Romney wins. Are these just really vocal but tiny minorities of the conservative coalition? Or are most of Paul’s supporters actually kook-fringe-lefty anti-war types disgusted with Obama the War Lord?

Jaibones on June 10, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Or are most of Paul’s supporters actually kook-fringe-lefty anti-war types disgusted with Obama the War Lord?

Jaibones on June 10, 2012 at 1:15 PM

In my experience, there are two types of Ron Paul supporters:

The first type is the “legalize weed” crowd. (I think most of these are young adults who have no political ideas besides knowing (rightfully) that most politicians are power-hungry egoists.)

The second are the libertarian idealists. While I’d love to see the government restricted completely to the limits in the Constitution, it’s certainly a situation of “you-can’t-get-there-from-here”. Paulites don’t see that. As with most idealists, failure to see reality will hurt your cause, rather than help it.

(Note that I think there are some Ron Paul followers who are outside both of these types. It seems that they aren’t a very vocal faction, though.)

RedCrow on June 10, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I’m so loving this.

I suggested months ago that Rand Paul for VP is a genius move by Romney, and I still hope he does it. It doesn’t get him a state (he already has Kentucky, for what it’s worth), but I thought it would get him the great majority of his Dad’s kook supporters … looks like I was wrong about that.

If you always keep in mind that Ron Paul and his bots are flower children, you will never overestimate their maturity/capabilities!

There’s a lot of time left, but with Paul supporters joining the nutbag fringe evangelical voters in saying “I will never vote for that Mormon Romney”, I’m not sure how Romney wins. Are these just really vocal but tiny minorities of the conservative coalition? Or are most of Paul’s supporters actually kook-fringe-lefty anti-war types disgusted with Obama the War Lord?

Jaibones on June 10, 2012 at 1:15 PM

I think you’ve narrowed it down properly, but from my experience it’s a “both” rather than an “either/or” case…

Bizarro No. 1 on June 10, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Rand Paul has lost all of my respect by supporting such a big government candidate like Mittens. I, for one, will no longer support Rand Paul in the future.

RightXBrigade on June 10, 2012 at 2:24 PM

I am not a big fan of pops, but I have high hopes for Rand. May he have a long and influential future in the GOP.

It would make me feel a lot better about voting Romney if Rand Paul were on the ticket.

OTOH, I worry about Rand Paul getting ‘Palinized’ and tossed under the bus.

bitsy on June 10, 2012 at 3:34 PM

It would be quicker for me to tell you what part I agree with, and here it is:

John Hitchcock on June 10, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Hmmm… so Iran is not a sovereign state, huh?

I should have known by your public proclamation of respect for ABBA that you are an idiot.

JohnGalt23 on June 10, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Forward, active defense” is far better than trying to throw the invaders out of Vineland, NJ.

John Hitchcock on June 10, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Seeing a lot of foreign invaders in Vineland, are you?

Loosen up on the tin foil. It’ll help blood get to your brain.

JohnGalt23 on June 10, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Forward, active defense” is far better than trying to throw the invaders out of Vineland, NJ.

John Hitchcock on June 10, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Seeing a lot of foreign invaders in Vineland, are you?

Loosen up on the tin foil. It’ll help blood get to your brain.

JohnGalt23 on June 10, 2012 at 3:38 PM

HAHAHA Nice!

RightXBrigade on June 10, 2012 at 5:10 PM

I am not a Romney fan and supported so many other candidates until they fell off that I’ve lost count.

BUT Paulbots who think the way now is to undermine Romney and help re-elect Obama are stupid as hell.

WannabeAnglican on June 10, 2012 at 8:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8