Rand Paul Endorses Mitt Romney for President

The son of Congressman Ron Paul, Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who holds many of his father’s libertarian leanings and who campaigned extensively for his father’s three presidential runs, including his 1988 bid as Libertarian Party nominee, appeared on Hannity earlier tonight and announced his decision to officially endorse presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

In his decision, Paul cites Romney’s plan to audit the Federal Reserve, reverse Obamacare, and oppose SOPA. He makes no mention of his contrasting views with Romney on the PATRIOT Act, the War on Drugs, or foreign policy.

Video of endorsement can be viewed here.

The news follows 2008 Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr’s own decision to endorse Romney in May, and The Daily Caller’s  June 5 report that President Obama will attempt to paint Romney as a “radical libertarian” during the general election.

The official and only Libertarian Party presidential nominee is Gary Johnson, whose eight year tenure as governor of New Mexico amounts to four more years than Romney’s one term as governor of Massachusetts.

48 thoughts on “Rand Paul Endorses Mitt Romney for President

  1. Trent Hill

    This isn’t a surprise. Rand has said all along he was going to endorse the eventual nominee. It’s very likely he consulted his father first.

  2. Steven Berson

    Even though I agree with the point that some $39 million worth of funds would have been better spent on a general election campaign rather than battling for in an expensive primary for a party that you have no chance of gaining the nomination of – if the goal is to actually win some votes for the LP candidate and build the party for the future then this is NOT the time for “I told you so” or “our team is better”! Instead simply letting folks know there is a welcoming alternative that would love to have their participation in it seems to me to be a way better tactic.

    The rhyme I’m putting out there is this:
    ‘Time for “Plan B”: abandon the GOP, join the LP, vote for GJ/JG!’

  3. Richard Kuszmar

    Apparently the Pauls aren’t principled Libertarians just opportunists.

  4. Ryan C

    Not a surprise, but still, my respect for Rand Paul clicked down a few notches today. Unfortunate.

  5. George Phillies

    Senator Paul and Congressman Paul are different people. Senator Paul boasted that the media tried to hang the ‘libertarian’ label on him, and couldn’t.

  6. JamesT

    Rand has been a constant disappointment. I’m disgusted. He clearly will not be Ron’s successor.

  7. Mark Hilgenberg

    The problem I have also had with Paul is he is a States ’ rights, constitutional conservative, not an individual rights constitutional rights based Libertarian.

  8. Joseph Thompson

    I really don’t care whom Rand Paul or Bob Barr support. If it is not Gary Johnson it is irrelevant. Focus on our candidate and our party.

  9. Joseph Thompson

    Not reaaly; remember this is Rand not Ron. In the comments to a column about this the Ron Paul supporters basically told Rand to take a hike.

  10. Nick Kruse

    Someone should remind Rand that his dad is still running for president.

  11. Melty

    I’m sayin Ron Paul won’t endorse Romney. He’ll endorse Johnson or else nobody.

  12. Robert Capozzi

    My guess is that some Paulistas will see this and some of the financial revelations coming out about Paul ’12 and the more open-minded among them may give GJ a second look.

    Politics is a dirty business, one that runs on money and endorsements. I don’t expect even the people I support to be driven snow, but I do want them to maintain maximum integrity in the clinch. The low road often seems the easy, expedient one. But the high road prevails in the end….

  13. JT

    Joseph: “Not [really]; remember this is Rand not Ron. In the comments to a column about this the Ron Paul supporters basically told Rand to take a hike.”

    Yes. To paraphrase, nobody should hold the father responsible for the sins of the son.

  14. Austin Battenberg

    @14 Ron Paul sent out an email to his supporters saying that he does not have enough delegates to become the nominee. He admits he has about 200 bound delegates, and 300 more stealth delegates bound for Romney. 500 is not enough.

    Also Rand is a Republican, and has said repeatedly that he would endorse the Republican nominee. I don’t put this in the same category as Bob Barr endorsing Romney because Barr is still a Libertarian, and he also endorsed Gingrich early on. Rand is doing it only after his father admitted to his supporters that he cannot win.

    Also, both Rand and Ron won’t endorse Gary for one major reason, and that is because he is pro-choice. Privately they probably support him. But publicly they cannot endorse him because they both signed some stupid pledge saying they will not endorse pro-choice candidates. That is why Ron didn’t even endorse John Dennis for Congress, who is running as a libertarian Republican against Nancy Pelosi. Its a political game, and it sucks, but I understand why it must be played.

    I would also like to say I too am disappointed at Rands endorsement, but I am still happy to have him in the Senate where he is really doing a decent job. His voting record has been pretty libertarian, with a few exceptions, and that is ultimately what matters most.

    “There’s no shame in compromising politically to advance principle. But you can never compromise principle to simply advance politically.” ~Jack Hunter aka The Southern Avenger

  15. Viva la r3VOLution

    F&@%!#g traitor. He won’t be getting a dime of my money or a minute of my time in 2016.

  16. JT

    Austin: “But publicly they cannot endorse him because they both signed some stupid pledge saying they will not endorse pro-choice candidates.”

    They did? Whose pledge is it–National Right to Life Committee?

  17. zapper

    “There’s no shame in compromising politically to advance principle. But you can never compromise principle to simply advance politically.” ~Jack Hunter aka The Southern Avenger

    This looks like Rand Paul has abandoned Principle to further his political career.

    This could help some parts of the Ron Paul army break free and leave the Republicans. Most will see this endorsement by Rand as a betrayal. Sure it’s not as bad as if Ron had done it, but it does serve as a bracing slap in the face. It will be quite infuriating and insulting to many ardent, hard working supporters and donors.

    The surprise twist factor could be if this is the opening rapprochment toward Paul’s selection as VP.

  18. Steven Berson

    @21 – the pledge they signed is the “Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life Pledge” – http://www.sba-list.org/2012pledge stating that they will never endorse any candidate that is not anti-abortion. Both Mitt Romney and Gary Johnson refused to sign this pledge.

  19. Austin Battenberg

    Thanks Steven, I was just about to post that. Here is a link to the actually photo with Ron’s signature:
    http://www.sba-list.org/sites/default/files/content/shared/ron_paul_signed_pledge.jpg

    Once again, Rand said he would endorse the eventual Republican nominee. He endorsed Ron all the way until Ron made it clear he cannot win. I don’t agree with it, and I think he shouldn’t have done it, but I don’t understand why so many people are surprised about it.

  20. RedPhillips

    “The problem I have also had with Paul is he is a States ’ rights, constitutional conservative, not an individual rights constitutional rights based Libertarian.”

    Maybe that is because the Constitution actually enshrines very few individual rights. A right is not there because you want it to be there. A lot of L/libertarians read rights into the Constitution. They don’t read the Constitution and extract actual rights from it.

  21. RedPhillips

    I don’t know what Rand thinks he will accomplish with this endorsement. No Ron Paul supporter who wasn’t going to support Romney is going to now with Rand’s endorsement, but all the Ron supporters who had doubts about Rand are now going to be crowing, “See, I told you so.”

    This is, IMO, a net loser for Rand Paul.

  22. Robert Capozzi

    RP, it ingratiates Rand with the establishment and the movement conservatives, perhaps….

  23. George Phillies

    The answer, however, may be that Rand Paul thinks the Republican establishment will support him in four years when he runs for re-election. He is probably partly right.

  24. RedPhillips

    Actually George, the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified so it isn’t really a valid part of the Constitution. Also, even if we grant that it was legally ratified and therefore valid, the “encorporation doctrine” was not the intent at the time and was not dreamed up until years later.

  25. Greg

    My guess is he is secretly hoping Romney loses which would set him up nicely to be one of the top contenders for the ’16 GOP nomination. Personally I think he is doing a good job of building a potentially winning coalition.

  26. Thomas L. Knapp

    RP@33,

    “Actually George, the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified so it isn’t really a valid part of the Constitution.”

    The entire Constitution was illegally ratified, too. The Articles of Confederation declared themselves perpetual, and what turned into the Constitutional Convention was assembled solely to make amendments to the Articles.

    The Secretary of State certified the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court has never overturned that ratification. You don’t have to like that it’s part of the Constitution. It’s part of the Constitution whether you like it or not.

    “Also, even if we grant that it was legally ratified and therefore valid, the ‘encorporation doctrine’ was not the intent at the time and was not dreamed up until years later.”

    Bullshit. Read the accounts of the debate in the Congressional Record. Its author and its advocates specifically stated that incorporation was their intent, and the amendment’s opponents specifically stated that they reason they were opposing it was that it would incorporate.

  27. langa

    This is just another example of why I don’t have half the respect for Rand that I do for his father.

    BTW, I don’t understand why some people want to hold this against Ron. Rand is not a puppet for his father. He’s a grown man, who makes his own decisions, and he alone should be held responsible for those decisions.

  28. Steven Berson

    “Illegally ratified” or not – one of the greatest protections of individual liberties in our nation are in fact these words taken from the 14th Amendment Section 1 – and for that I absolutely cherish them and am willing to fight to make sure they continue as law of the land:
    “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

  29. George Phillies

    The 14th amendment was indubitably legally ratified, and is an enormously important part of our Constitution, conservative nonsense notwithstanding.

  30. Dan Reale

    Rand Paul…

    has been a catastrophe in this regard. Clearly the apple has fallen very far from the Ron Paul tree – arguably in a different orchard.

  31. just asking

    The surprise twist factor could be if this is the opening rapprochment toward Paul’s selection as VP.

    The only question is which Paul?

  32. Nick Kruse

    “The entire Constitution was illegally ratified, too. The Articles of Confederation declared themselves perpetual, and what turned into the Constitutional Convention was assembled solely to make amendments to the Articles.”

    I agree. The new constitution is basically a big amendment to the articles of confederation. Amendments to the articles of confederation were supposed to be ratified by all states, not 75% of them.

  33. RedPhillips

    “The 14th amendment was indubitably legally ratified, and is an enormously important part of our Constitution, conservative nonsense notwithstanding.”

    So George, if I hold a gun to your head and force you to sign a contract under threat of violence, is that contract valid?

    The Confederate States were forced to pass the 14th Amendment in order to be readmitted to the Union. But why did they need to be readmitted? I thought they weren’t allowed to secede in the first place. And if they weren’t part of the Union and needed to be readmitted, then how was their ratification meaningful, and doesn’t that concede their secession was valid? You can’t have it both ways. Some of us call such mental gymnastics “nonsense.”

  34. RedPhillips

    “Also, even if we grant that it was legally ratified and therefore valid, the ‘incorporation doctrine’ was not the intent at the time and was not dreamed up until years later.”

    Bullshit…

    From the 1st paragraph + of the Wiki entry on the incorporation doctrine:

    “The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

    Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine…” (emphasis mine)

    Perhaps you should go challenge that Tom.

  35. Jill Pyeatt

    Austin Cassidy: I’d like to post your article at # 2 above as an article. Would that be all right?

  36. Jill Pyeatt

    Great, Austin. If I can’t get to it tonight, I will tomorrow.

    I don’t know much about you in order to give you credit. Can you email me a sentence or two (ie, are you Libertarian, where do you live, etc)? If not, I’ll just refer to the blog. My personal email is: stone@altrionet.com (or you can accept my friend request on FB so we can talk there). Thanks– 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *