Friday, June 8, 2012

Hard truths: Rand Paul sold out, Ron Paul won't be the nominee

In the wake of Senator Rand Paul's surprise endorsement of Governor Mitt Romney on the Sean Hannity Show today, this is what Ron Paul supporters are now coming to grips with.

When they are now treating you like this:

Far be it from me to be the party pooper, but for all the tea party types out there, uh, your guy Ron Paul was a big-time loser in the Republican Party presidential nominating process.
Let's put it this way: Ron Paul is the Libyan air force of presidential candidates. He's the Washington Generals of the ballot box. He's the John Carter of the electoral process.
Dud. Bupkes. Zippo. Nada.
Yet the tea party can't quite seem to take the rejection of the Paul campaign by the body politic. Republican voters would have rather shoved shards of glass up their noses than see Mr. Dithers on the ballot against President Barack Obama this fall.

. . . then you know that the calculations have been done, and the GOP leadership has decided it can live without you.

Over on the Daily Paul, there is little consensus beyond the fact that Rand Paul is a sell-out.

From looking at the first 500 comments, I give a rough breakdown of the positions into which the Ron Paul movement is splintering:

--Ron Paul still has a secret plan and/or we should go to Tampa and get him nominated anyway
--Ron Paul was threatened out of the race after a secret meeting with Ben Bernanke
--Ron Paul is also a sell-out (we'll continue the movement without him)
--I'm going to write in Ron Paul no matter what (even if they don't count my vote)
--I'm going to vote for Obama now in order to get Mitt for this
--I'm not going to vote for Gary Johnson because Lew Rockwell says he's not a libertarian
--I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson now because he's the lesser of three evils
--I'm never going to vote again; I'm going home to get my guns

If this was going to happen, it had to happen now, because Mitt needs the fall-out to be over well before the convention.

What he's hoping is that all of you disintegrate.


Chris W said...

Hopefully this will open the Paul supporters' eyes and they will see the bigger picture, finally getting behind Gary Johnson.

Eric Dondero said...

Hopefully, this will open the eyes of ALL Libertarians, including Libertarian Party members, that our enemy is the Marxist Muslim illegal alien in the White House, not each other. This is the time for all of us to be helping each other defeat Obama, both the Johnson people and Libertarians for Rommey.

Vote for Gary Johnson is you live in a safe Red State. The more votes for Gary, the more incentive Mitt will have after he's elected to move in a hardcore libertarian direction.

If you're a Libertarian who lives in a key swing State like Ohio, PA, or Colorado, vote Mitt Romney!

If you're conflicted, simply find a "vote buddy" in another State and exchange your vote.

Let's stop bashing each other, and start to work together on this.

Obama is the enemy, not a fellow capitalist like Mitt Romney.

Eric Dondero said...


This goes for any Republicans who are listening in here too. There is NO reason, if you live in Texas, Utah, South Carolina or Idaho to vote for Rommey. You'd almost be throwing away your vote. A vote for Gary Johnson makes a ton more sense if you live in a deeply Red State. Don't be a pussy, Red State Republicans VOTE GARY JOHNSON!

Will McVay said...

Everyone should vote for Gary Johnson, ESPECIALLY if you live in a swing state. Let's teach the GOP that they have to nominate actual libertarians, not statists that Eric Dondero can't comprehend aren't libertarian, or they will justly lose. Ask yourself if you want to put up with big-government BS for only 4 years under Obama or risk 8 years of corporatism under Romney.

Romney's a corporatist, not a capitalist. There's a huge difference. Romney's more of the same.

James Christina said...

I will say this a plain and simple as I can. Vote Gary Johnson for Liberty.

Dana Garrett said...

Sold out? LOL. Libertarians are closer ideologically to status quo Republicans than they are to anyone else. Rand Paul just went with his close second choice.

Steven H. Newton said...


You don't get to decide what my critical issues are.

Tell me any mainstream party that makes marriage equality, cutting the defense budget by 43%, marijuana legalization, instituting a consumption tax, and ending military interentions a priority.

Republicans? Not hardly. Democrats? Don't make me laugh.

Next time engage what it is actually being discussed rather than your own straw Republicans.

Dana Garrett said...


Tell me when Gary Johnson was a governor, what political party did he belong to? When he *first* ran for president in 2012, in which party did he seek to be the nominee? In 2008, before Bob Barr ran as a Libertarian for President, what party was he associated with? What party does Mitt Romney belong to? In all 4 cases the answer is Republican. So Rand Paul prefers one Republican over the Republican you prefer who is running for President.

I rest my case.

Steven H. Newton said...


Do you get tired of making assumptions without actually doing any research?

When Gary Johnson first ran for governor he was rebuffed by the GOP in New Mexico, both as being a newcomer and not being in step with their values. They primaried him when he filed. He beat the guy they put up. And then he beat a popular Democratic governor.

They didn't primary him the second time, but they discussed it--the NM GOP damn near disowned him for his social views on multiple occasions, such as when he came out against the death penalty or for marijuana legalization.

Yes, he ran in the GOP both for Governor and President. For governor because the guy he wanted to challenge was a Democrat. For president because who the hell was going to let him into the Democratic primaries?

In the Presidential run the GOP leadership shut him out of all but one debate by creating a special rule ("The Gary Johnson rule") to exclude him. He took on Santorum over same-sex marriage and abortion rights.

So here's my question, that you have deftly dodged again:

How are his positions mainsream GOP positions? Cite them for me.

And my second question: what other options existed in the two-party system for a competent politician who does not fit your cookie cutter mold?

This myopia is unusual for you. You are usually capable of separating facts from partisan soundbites.