Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
A man of principle and integrity. Representative Ron Paul in response to the rEpublican pArty offer of a speaking slot at the national rEpublican cOnvention.
POLITICO - Mr. Paul, in an interview, said convention planners had offered him an opportunity to speak under two conditions: that he deliver remarks vetted by the Romney campaign, and that he give a full-fledged endorsement of Mr. Romney. He declined.
“It wouldn’t be my speech,” Mr. Paul said. “That would undo everything I’ve done in the last 30 years. I don’t fully endorse him for president.”
It is a rare thing in the politics of the 21st century when a politician puts principal ahead of politics.
A son is not always "a chip off the old block."
Paul’s refusal to play ball stands in contrast to his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who at some personal political cost has endorsed Mitt Romney’s bid – and has a speaking slot.
The disparate approaches to the convention, and toward Romney, reflect the stylistic differences between father and son. And they reveal starkly different levels of ambition.
Uncompromising and perfectly willing to operate on the margins of mainstream politics for decades, Ron Paul proved unable to take his liberty message to a broader audience. Even this year, at the height of his national influence and popularity, the Texas congressman failed to win the popular vote in a single state and never seriously threatened to win the GOP nomination.
His son, however, has already accomplished something that Ron Paul never could – he won statewide office. And in less than two years in the Senate, Rand Paul has established himself as a formidable player in GOP politics and a presidential prospect.
How much further Rand Paul can advance the movement is unclear. But with his endorsement of Romney and his convention profile, it’s obvious that Rand Paul is aiming to take the libertarian message to the next level while his father will occupy the role of the movement’s conscience.
I find a glaring contradiction in it all. Ron Paul, by far the brighter of the Paul's IMO, was unable to gain national recognition and acceptance. Yet his son, who supposedly is a liberty movement advocate has risen to be a star of the movement. But is he sincere? Methinks not.
By pandering to the establishment wing of the rEpublican party he insures himself a speaking slot at the national convention. Need we require any further proof than his endorsement of Mittens Romney, the epitome of the establishment statist neo fascist rEpublican party?