June 14th, 2012

On the Rand Paul Endorsement


photo credit: Gage Skidmore

Much has been said already about Rand Paul endorsing Mitt Romney. (If you’ve been hibernating, watch it here.) Given the impact this action has had on the liberty movement, I don’t want to pass up the opportunity to add my thoughts.

I think that Rand Paul should not have endorsed Mitt Romney. I think that very strongly, and I’ll explain why.

First off, as with many things, it’s important to define our terms. What is an endorsement? It is nothing more than an affirmation of support for something. In the case of politics, it is a commendation to voters for the candidacy of a certain politician. In other words, Rand Paul was encouraging his supporters and voters in general to support Mitt Romney’s presidential candidacy, and by so doing, tying himself to Romney’s current positions and future actions.

It’s for that very reason that he should not have done it.

Those coming to Paul’s defense include, most notably, Jack Hunter—the smooth-talking former radio host and official blogger of the Ron Paul campaign. In a series of videos and posts, Hunter has taken to task those detractors who object to this endorsement.

For example, Hunter and others point to Murray Rothbard’s endorsement of George H.W. Bush or Gary Johnson’s endorsement of George W. Bush to suggest that Rand Paul’s endorsement of Romney is not a big deal, let alone a career-ending move. It’s true that these endorsements did not significantly tarnish the legacy of these individuals, nor hinder their praiseworthy actions before and after the endorsements were given. But simply because they endorsed awful candidates does not justify Rand in doing the same. No parent excuses their child’s bad behavior when the child says “Billy did it, too!”

In his first video on the topic of Rand’s endorsement of Romney, Hunter emphasized the pragmatic opportunity it provided and how it helps Rand Paul’s future political career (and by extension, he claims, the liberty movement). In a casual dismissal of purity in principle, Hunter claims that “there is no shame in compromising politically to advance principle.” Put differently, Hunter argues that the end justifies the means.

That is something with which many Ron Paul supporters vehemently disagree.

It’s important to note that Rand’s “means” are not all bad. Indeed, he has a bright voting record in the Senate, tarnished only from time to time with some bad votes. In the very same week that he endorsed Mitt Romney, Rand introduced bills to require search warrants for domestic drone use, legalize industrial hemp, end federal mandatory minimum sentences for all non-violent crimes, and end the TSA. These are welcome efforts, clearly showing that Senator Paul is a key supporter of liberty.

Why, then, would somebody with a mostly stellar voting record offer their explicit support of a presidential candidate who is anathema to so many of these issues? Explaining his endorsement to Sean Hannity (of all people…), Paul said that “Governor Romney and I actually have quite a few similarities.” One might think that he would then go on to list the ideological commonalities they share, but no—he listed superficialities instead. From having fathers who both ran for president to both having large families and “the same family values,” Rand led out on things that have nothing to do with the office of President and the oath that goes with it.

Moving on to just a few issues, such as auditing the Fed and protecting internet privacy, Paul twice claimed that Romney “is right there with us,” despite the opposite in fact being true. Mitt Romney has been hostile, whether through his record in office or his campaign rhetoric, to almost every significant position espoused by Ron Paul and his supporters. While Rand Paul did privately meet with Mitt Romney to discuss such issues, and even though Romney may have expressed support for looking into or supporting some of these issues, it’s highly unlikely that a President Romney would at all be an ally to the cause of liberty. His record simply does not support such a “hope” for “change.” It’s a pipe dream.

Even so, it happened. Rand Paul expressly affirmed his support of a candidate who has historically been opposed to what the so-called “Ron Paul Revolution” has been about. And on top of speaking mere words, Rand told Hannity that he would go out on the campaign trail to help Romney’s presidential bid, and that “I can be an asset in solidifying the conservative base of the party.”

…solidifying it behind a candidate who supports bailouts, stimuli, deficit spending, military occupations, indefinite detentions, torture, the Federal Reserve, the war on drugs, federal welfare schemes, and so many other unconstitutional and illegitimate government programs and policies. This is a positive thing how, exactly?

Yes, it’s true that “going along to get along” may help Rand with his future political career, whether he attempts a presidential campaign or not. But since when did the cause of liberty become contingent upon supporting things that run afoul of the cause itself? And why must principle be advanced on the shoulders of pragmatic compromise?

This movement is about more than winning elections or retaining political power. It’s about changing the hearts and minds of people around the country—around the world. It’s about upholding principle not through compromise, but consistency. It’s about sacrificing whatever is necessary to rigidly adhere to truth and morality. It’s about practicing what we preach.

Offering an affirmation of explicit support for a political candidate who is no ally to our efforts, even if for the possible opportunity to better advance our efforts in the long term, is not practicing what we preach. Reaching the end goal is not worth the effort it requires if that effort has required us to support policies and politicians whose goal is on the opposite end of the field. It’s better to move the ball only partially down the field while being true to ourselves and our cause than to get a touchdown by corrupting that cause in the name of strategy.

Rand Paul is a good man, and one with a bright future. He is a friend to our cause and an important advocate of liberty. But his inconsistency means that he cannot consistently be trusted, and his lack of leadership means that he cannot fill his father’s shoes. While he is far more friend than foe, he is not the fellow soldier in arms upon whom you can depend without question in the most dangerous of circumstances.

And that’s our loss.

29 Responses to “On the Rand Paul Endorsement”

  1. Todd Weiler
    June 14, 2012 at 9:34 pm #

    From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pragmatic

    prag·mat·ic (prg-mtk)
    adj.
    1. Dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences; practical.
    2. Philosophy Of or relating to pragmatism.
    3. Relating to or being the study of cause and effect in historical or political events with emphasis on the practical lessons to be learned from them.

  2. Ben
    June 14, 2012 at 9:47 pm #

    Very well said. Rand could have carried the torch of the liberty movement that his father helped reignite. Now he will always be viewed with suspicion.

    The move is also hurting the Ron Paul official campaign, the Campaign for liberty, etc. I have personally unsubscribed from many places that have picked up the Rand side of things

  3. Mike
    June 14, 2012 at 11:24 pm #

    Very disappointing about Rand, and I’m happy to know that Connor agrees with my view that principles need NOT be sacrificed for the greater good – ever. I pray I can stand on honest and true principle in every moment, even if I stand alone.

    I wonder now, however, who will carry the torch of liberty. Where is the next Ron Paul? There may be someone that I’m unaware of, but sadly – not a single person comes to mind. No one with Ron’s historically impeccable track record, with a LIFE of principle-based unwavering convictions seems to be emerging. When we lose Ron, to whom do we look to lead the way?

    The phrase “Come follow Me” has a special depth and consolation for me tonight.

  4. Josh
    June 15, 2012 at 10:29 am #

    I wholeheartedly agree with you, Connor. I had similar thoughts about how Rand’s endorsement of Romney will not put him in a position later to advance the cause of liberty. I think it’s naive to believe that anyone will be able to help steer the direction of the country toward liberty by giving favors to the fascists.

    The corrupt sculptors of American politics will only give Rand access to power if he does what they want. And they’ll remove him if he bucks their plans at any point. The only way the cause of liberty can be advanced is by standing firmly on the side of liberty, apart from the statists.

  5. outside the corridor
    June 15, 2012 at 3:53 pm #

    Call me a conspiracy ‘kook’, but I think there is something malignant behind it–
    Rand did not have to endorse anyone, and he didn’t have to endorse anyone now, so why?

    I don’t dislike Rand for this, but I am roiling in confusion and disappointment–

    and I think that Rand ‘made a deal’ with someone; not sure what for and not sure why, but I don’t think it was to further his own political career–

    There are a lot of muddy, sad things going on ‘out there’–

    whatever *you* call it (Ron Paul has called it the shadow government), a group of people who can manipulate an entire nation in order to profit from the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the middle east–

    can play games with people when they want to–

    For some reason Ron was considered ‘kooky’ enough himself that he wasn’t forced into bad decisions, but Rand wasn’t–

    I really don’t think that it is what it appears to be, but I have NO idea what it IS–

  6. L. Brown
    June 16, 2012 at 8:37 am #

    I found is strange that Rand would talk about those superficial common ties with Romney. I might be reading into the lines too much but, it didn’t seem heart felt when Rand was endorsing Romney…..but that’s purely just feelings…..it will be interesting what will happen with Rand in the future.

    But, this has also been a lesson to myself in standing for principle. A teacher in school always said to the class when someone did something wrong, “This is a good example of what not to do.” I hope that in my efforts to stand for principle that I myself will be strong as Ron Paul rather than his son (although, with all due respect to him.)

  7. Lynne
    June 16, 2012 at 4:47 pm #

    Tarpley / Alex Jones on Ron Paul’s sell out: “death by a thousand cuts, and slow poison”… Bilderbergers openly endorsing Romney. (Romney attended Bilderberg, flown in by helicopter at night, hidden, but several hotel staff saw him there.) Peter Thiel, Bilderberg heir apparent to David Rockefeller, gives 2.5 million to Ron Paul, then Paul rolls over to Romney right on cue. All that money goes to Romney along with MILLIONS in grass roots donations to Paul and to the freedom movement. Paul also gives (sells) THE mailing list of his own supporters to Romney. (People on Paul’s email mailing list are getting personal emails now from Mitt and his wife). Breaks my heart to say it, but sure looking like Ron Paul is the very worst kind of evil – conscious, plotting, planning, patient, intentionally misleading, in total spiritual violation of the Hippocratic oath AND the Golden Rule. At least human scum Rockefeller says what he is, is open about his agenda. Appears that Paul intentionally lied to all those who trusted him. How could he stand up there with thousands cheering for him, look them in the eye, and know what the plan was all along? Epic human being fail. I predict that Ron Paul will be repackaged, rebranded, marketed ever so skillfully, and re-emerge to great fanfare and overwhelming acclaim as the sweet grandfatherly leader of the new anti-war, feel-good synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic = The False Prophet. No Dorothy, we can never go home again:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VPtOepub40k

  8. Jon
    June 17, 2012 at 2:07 am #

    Stefan Molyneux was right and I agree whole heartedly when it comes to this topic, politics isn’t the solution, the solution is raising our kids in a peaceful manner and teaching our kids and learning and knowing freedom and liberty ourselves and spreading the message.

  9. Lynne
    June 17, 2012 at 6:29 am #

    Politics past laid the foundations of freedom upon which we operate today. An awareness of and involvement in politics current, and our alignment on the issue of agency, determines individual “valiancy” in the war in heaven which continues upon earth today. From that perspective politics is not only important, but imperative. Raising our children to walk in peace along the railroad tracks only works if we know when the train is coming.

  10. outside the corridor
    June 17, 2012 at 11:42 am #

    @Lynne,

    I have wondered now and again if Ron Paul was the false shepherd who would lead the sheep to slaughter–

    but his message, or the message he has taught (he has never pointed to himself) has been completely consistent with everything that I have studied for decades, even before I heard of the man, and I heard of in the mid 1980s–

    So, is he the real traitor here? Was he righteous and then turned to evil, and if so, why?

    I can’t imagine a person being capable of doing what he has done for 30 years and then suddenly turning–

    I have not placed my hopes in Ron Paul. I never expected him to become POTUS, to be honest. I have worked on his campaign, because I felt it was the right thing to do–
    but I don’t believe he would ‘sell out’ because he’s evil, and–
    if something else happened, the rest of *us* are in a lot of trouble–

    It is very hard for me not to believe, however, that Romney is evil. A pharisee. The pharisees killed Jesus–
    they were the ‘righteous LDS leaders’ of the holy land during the time of Jesus, and they killed their God–

    never mind me; I am feeling very confused. I have not rested my hopes on Ron Paul, but I am very weary of all of this–

  11. Jon
    June 17, 2012 at 11:44 am #

    Lynne,

    Correction, a knowledge of individual liberty laid the foundation for freedom, politics was only a side issue. If the people don’t realize the individual is sovereign then nothing else matters. If people don’t realize it is not OK for the government to molest them then they will continue to be molested. If the people scream and say no more molestation then it doesn’t matter.

  12. Jon
    June 17, 2012 at 12:32 pm #

    outside the corridor,

    Read 3 Ne 16:10 and then think of what Romney has said of other nations and the US role in telling them what to do. I think Romney has some good things about him and some bad. When it comes to politics it seems like most of it is bad.

  13. Nick
    June 18, 2012 at 8:40 am #

    Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t really see the problem with endorsing someone who’s principles are not as good as we would like.

    To me, by endorsing Romney, Rand is merely saying that he will vote for Romney over Obama and he’s encouraging us to do the same.

    Romney may not be nearly the candidate that I would like him to be, but he’s better than the president that we’ve got.

  14. TGraham
    June 18, 2012 at 8:43 am #

    I agree with Rand the democrats have to be defeated!!!!!!!!!

  15. Jon
    June 18, 2012 at 10:04 am #

    And the definition of insanity is??? Oh, that’s why I won’t vote for people that say they will not uphold the constitution. Because we keep getting the same results when we keep voting for people without principle.

  16. MuchoBrento
    June 18, 2012 at 4:24 pm #

    OTC… I agree completely. Rand didn’t have to endorse anybody at all. He could have gone right up to election day and never endorsed anybody, while keeping his Republican status untarnished. And frankly, I think all of his constituents and non-constituents would have understood if he had done so (given the fact that his father had been in the race).

    Also to OTC’s point, the timing of his endorsement, and the channel for announcing his endorsement (the Hannity show) are appalling.

    I trust Ron Paul to this day. His track record has been impeccable for far too long to suddenly lose confidence in him.

    Rand, on the other hand, has relegated himself in my mind to another “politician”; one that has been on the side of good principles, but warrants suspicion all the same.

  17. Shaun Knapp
    June 19, 2012 at 12:12 am #

    Great commentary Connor. Always fun to read your posts and see your grounded stances in principle.

    I too, have to plead guilty of being a bit of a “conspiracy” kook on this one. There is a malignant thing behind the scenes, and we have good history documenting this. Congressman McDonald, a John Birch Society guy was murdered by the Establishment Moneychangers (who bankroll[ed] Communism all over the globe—with US Taxpayer support, of course.

    There was a congressman from idaho, I’ve heard people talk of how they set him up, he was a vocal opponent to the fed, and they destroyed his life and he spent most of his last years in Prison and they tortured him there brutally. I’ll have to go re-read and freshen up on details. Congressman Hansen, I think it was?

    Gary North speaks of a conversation with W. Cleon Skousen talking about Reagan having the CFR Moneychangers bringing him to heel, letting him know that if he did not choose G. H. W. Bush as his running mate, he would never see the White House as President. And what happened at the RNC in 1980 when Reagan announced CFR Bush as VP? People were stunned. Bush had been a vicious opponent to Reagan, a very harsh critic, and then at the last minute, Reagan would be stupid enough to choose this monstrous man as his VP, a man who was CIA director, and we even have evidence was mostly likely part of the nasty operation in the Kennedy assassination. (I hope I’m not opening up too many cans of worms here, there are books and documentaries on all these topics.)

    Gary North gives his account here of that mess in 1980:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north552.html

    Then, the globalists shot Reagan and miraculously he survived, but they had let him know, he was not in the driver seat. It was the CFR who surrounded him and his VP who were truly running the thing, along with the shadow government behind the scenes.

    Today, this “secret combination” that seeks the overthrow of all nations, lands and countries has had over 25 years of strengthening since Ezra Taft Benson in 1988 stated it was “increasing its evil influence upon America and the entire world.”

    Why are we to “awake to a sense of our awful situation” as commanded in Ether 8 of the Book of Mormon? Because, we have indeed permitted and suffered this secret combination to be built above us, and it will not tolerate a Ron Paul for president, as it would not tolerate a Ronald Reagan from implementing his campaign promises. It will not sit back with all the murders and devastation it has done to date, and let the Paul’s continue to be the focal point of a mass movement running against their control grid and rising tyranny. No. There has been a private conversation and/or meeting of some sort with the Paul’s. They’ve surely been spoken to and given the terms laid out in how the game is played. Perhaps they’ve been threatened with the murder of family members. Perhaps they’ve been given threats of a myriad types that one can speculate on.

    Truly, we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against evil wickedness in high places, and until the vast majority repent and change their upholding of these moneychanger backed, CFR politicians, this secret combination will grow and strengthen until it unleash a blood bath, and surely, the blood bath will ultimately be turned upon the heads of all those who have sworn allegiance to it, for God has decreed that all who suffer this secret combination to be built up above us, will be overthrown to their own destruction when it is fully accepted and spreads into the whole country. When this country begins to murder those resisting this secret combination, then will surely the judgements of God fall in righteous wrath upon this nation and break it to pieces like a “potters vessel” as has been prophesied by Wilford Woodruff, unless the nation repent of their political sins and otherwise.

    Thank goodness that despite all of the evil, all of the sophistry and lies, there has been enough of support of right by enough citizens to have actually sparked the “Ron Paul Revolution” in the remarkable way it has spread. For it to succeed, however, and the US Constitution to be once again enthroned as “inviolate,” the “more part of the righteous” need to awake from the sleep of hell and cease upholding evil and wickedness—cease upholding evil schemers and incombent traitors to the US Constitution, such as Orrin Hatch, Mitt Romney and others who uphold ghastly abominations like the NDAA with its provisions to murder US Citizens and strip them of their due process.

    LDS Church President, Ezra Taft Benson plead with the church to re-read once again the account of 3 Nephi in the Book of Mormon—or rather, it was the Lord ultimately making the plea, then likening and paralleling the book to our time with this critical point of many points made:

    “Secret combinations flourished because, as Helaman tells us, the Gadianton robbers ‘had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils’ (Helaman 6:38). . . even as today.” (Conference Report, April 1987, Ensign, May 1987, p. 4.)

  18. Shaun Knapp
    June 19, 2012 at 12:19 am #

    Oops, that URL was this, citing W. Cleon Skousen’s conversation with Gary North regarding Reagan choosing the Globalist CFR monster, G. H. W. Bush:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north552.html

  19. Jon
    June 19, 2012 at 8:58 am #

    Fascinating Shaun. The congressman’s name was George Hansen.

  20. Lynne
    June 19, 2012 at 8:47 pm #

    Re Shaun: “No. There has been a private conversation and/or meeting of some sort with the Pauls. They’ve surely been spoken to and given the terms laid out in how the game is played. Perhaps they’ve been threatened with the murder of family members. Perhaps they’ve been given threats of a myriad types that one can speculate on.”

    Ron Paul is no novice in the upper eschelons of the gadiantons. He knows the game. He knows what they do to people. This is his SECOND run for president. He knew full well that his wife, his family, his friends, and indeed every single supporter who raised a hand for him was at risk of unspeakable acts of torture and death if he didn’t keep to the script. He went in with eyes open. He gathered an incredible following. Yes, Rand may have been trying to protect dad’s life. Yes, Ron may be trying to protect a granddaughter, or a city, or a stadium of cheering fans from horrible death. We won’t know on this because he obviously can’t speak. But if I have learned anything of value from the man it is to stand on the principle of agency. That’s what this was about – the war in heaven, again. It wasn’t about whether or not he could actually get elected, it was about voting for the principle of agency, and being valiant in the fight for freedom. I watched the clips of the rallies again – so much hope, so many people wide open emotionally, spiritually, intellectually. I just weep for the kids, the youth of America, like you Connor, like all those who’ve been energized and have sacrificed for the principles of agency through Ron Paul’s message. I’m 62 years old. I’ve been thru this with Barry Goldwater in the 60′s. I know this hurt and recognize the solar plexus punch that knocks the wind out of you and makes you cry for a year when nobody sees you. This is not just a damn shame, it’s more. Much more than a mere “understandable” sellout under duress. If I had millions of hopeful, enthusiastic, all-in, totally committed followers of truth following me, if I was accountable to God for their souls, and I was given an ultimatum to turn on them with a dagger to the heart like this, flip them to the dark side to save my own skin or that of my family, I don’t believe I could do it for any reason. To clarify the principle involved here, compromising with evil -I think of Alma and Amulek: When Alma and Amulek were forced to witness the martyrdom of those who accepted the gospel message, Amulek said to Alma: “How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames.” Alma replied, “The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that…the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.” (Alma 14:11.). I wish that Ron Paul had had the Christian testimony and noble fortitude to stand firm, even if it was his wife or daughter or city or a stadium full of supporters under the flames, and tell the Gadiantons to go to hell. I wanted Ron Paul to walk his talk. “… there is no compromise allowed. No doing deals with the devil. If we support liberty, we must deny our support for those who oppose it. We must never allow ourselves to become part of the very system that is destroying our economy, our liberties and our future.” – Ron Paul

  21. MuchoBrento
    June 20, 2012 at 9:00 am #

    Lynne… Agreed!!!

  22. TRON
    June 20, 2012 at 10:12 pm #

    Ron Paul collects social security.

    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/20/502846/paul-admits-social-security/

  23. Liz
    June 27, 2012 at 12:28 am #

    I think he genuinely likes and trusts Romney. I think this shows Rand wants to be a serious person in his own right.

    So I guess that legislation to ban TSA didn’t work out? Darn. He should run that through weekly until it does.

  24. Liz
    June 27, 2012 at 12:30 am #

    “..no doing deals with the devil?” I’m thinking it’s the devil that wants to legalize prostitution and drugs. That’s just my take on it.

  25. Lynne
    June 27, 2012 at 7:42 am #

    Note to self: I will not flame. I will not flame. I will not flame.

    Note to Liz: yes dear, you are probably right. Rand probably genuinely trusts Romney and likes him alot.

  26. outside the corridor
    June 27, 2012 at 12:23 pm #

    @Shaun and Lynne–

    I could have written what both of you wrote, I guess.

    The exception is: I can’t tell another person what choices to make. I can’t tell Ron Paul what choices he should make.

    For all *I* know, Dr. Paul did turn to God, and God said, “it’s time for it to be over, Ron; you’ve done what I asked you to do.”

    When was the last time the life of an LDS prophet was threatened, to *our* knowledge?

    Sometimes people died for a cause; sometimes they live for it.

    The point is that nobody knows. Nobody knows–

    and . . . Lynne, thank you for the rescuing humor–
    your note to self is wise counsel for others of *us*–

    I’ve been a Ron Paul campaign worker, and I first voted for him in 1988–

    donated money to the campaign. I don’t know what in ‘tarnation’ is going on in the country and the world, but I do know it’s the last days, and that gives me a strange sort of comfort.
    And, yes, I do focus on Zion–and on trying to rescue my own family in the middle of economic, health and other challenges–

    I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has been a support to this old Ron Paul ‘listener’–

    there have been some wonderful comments on Connor’s board, and I don’t think it’s over yet.

    Oh, in the sense that a foundation has been set–

    as far as I know, there won’t be a valid election in November anyway–

    and George Hansen, if anyone has read this far? Met him; good man–

    met him before his brutal arrest and talked to him after his horrific imprisonment–

    all is NOT well in Zion–

  27. outside the corridor
    June 27, 2012 at 12:36 pm #

    @Lynne,
    I’m in your generation (grandparents here)–
    and I wasn’t involved with Goldwater, though I watched it with anxiety and remember it all too well–
    I wasn’t old enough to vote, yet–

    The fact is that LDS people COULD have chosen liberty, and a majority have not. Most are asleep to the reality of true liberty–

    and I think it’s significant that they have chosen the person they have (or at least they think they have chosen him) chosen–

    it says much about the character of the typical LDS person who went to the GOP events in Utah, etc.–

    and chose the sort of person with the sort of character they did.

    I believe this will be the beginning of tribulation–

    I don’t mention the name; there is no point of it–

    but this is not the sort of person who will do well in Zion–

    I’m trying to learn to overcome my outrageous temper with regards to him–

    so I won’t mention the name.

    But this will come down on the heads of the ‘saints’–

    I have no doubt of it–

    A bitter test, indeed–

  28. Lynne
    June 28, 2012 at 9:53 am #

    Back to thread topic – Rand’s endorsement of Romney. Rand signed an agreement going in to his initial senate campaign that he would support the republican nominee for president, as a condition of full support by the republican party in his first election. THERE is the problem, the deal with the devil. We don’t know particulars of that binding legal agreement, except that a bunch of attorneys probably made big bucks drafting it ironclad. We do know that Rand knew his father would be running for president and might not be the nominee. Very likely that Rand and Ron spent father / son quality time discussing ramifications of that endorsement contract before Rand signed it, why in the world wouldn’t they? Rand may have assumed that it meant AFTER confirmed defeat of Ron Paul, then Rand would need to step up for Romney. Benefit of the doubt here, but still pretty stupid. Then somebody with power yanked the chain early, before the nomination was confirmed at Tampa, to pull the rug out from under the millions of Ron Paul supporters gaining momentum, and Rand had no choice but to give public endorsement. I would like to have seen Rand Paul say something like: under the terms of my legally binding contract with the republican party to support the republican nominee, and in the face of current delegate counts which indicate that Romney is the likely nominee, I will therefore endorse him fully AFTER retabulation and verification of all elections curently in dispute, and as soon as a certified delegate count has been provided to the satisfaction of all voters… and yadayada. Even a novice contract attorney could have scripted Rand for an equivocal endorsement. But whatever, it’s done. People have agency, (at the moment) and all hearts (motives) will be revealed here pretty soon. Heber C. Kimball said “a test, a Test, a TEST is coming”. Close friend of Joseph and Brigham, party to some private chats around the campfire with both, so who would he be telling that a test to a factor of ten was coming? The folks who had just come across to Utah under the most miserable tests known at the time? They’d had their test, we get ours, and it will be mindbending. @ Outside – yes, Book of Mormon Pride Cycle rectification coming right up – D&C 112: 23-26. “In my house it begins, from my house it goes forth… “

  29. Sarah
    September 28, 2012 at 1:59 pm #

    “Rand Paul is a good man, and one with a bright future. He is a friend to our cause and an important advocate of liberty. But his inconsistency means that he cannot consistently be trusted, and his lack of leadership means that he cannot fill his father’s shoes. While he is far more friend than foe, he is not the fellow soldier in arms upon whom you can depend without question in the most dangerous of circumstances.”

    Oh, okay, Mr, Boyack. You can bash on him all you want as long as you say “bless his heart” first, right? Who said he wanted to fill his dad’s shoes anymore? Who are you to define what “good” leadership is? You seem to only be defining it by what helps you. Have YOU personally talked to him about what happened? He’s a child of God and is entitled to his own agency, just like you are. Who are you to judge him because of a choice that he made? If you disagree with him, that’s fine. You are free to. But instead of bashing on others because their opinions don’t coincide with your own (all the while claiming that you’re a good, Christlike person), why not just teach correct principles and let your followers decide for themselves. Don’t indoctrinate them. That’s what dictators do.

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.