Ron Paul

Rand Paul Endorses Mitt Romney "Now That the Nominating Process is Over"


not ron paul
Fox News

Senator Rand Paul appeared on Fox News' Hannity last night, "happy to announce" he was supporting Mitt Romney for president "now that the nominating process is over."

Ron Paul's campaign has all but acknowledged Ron Paul's not winning the nomination, but the elder Paul has never endorsed the Republican nominee. Though he said he stood with Reagan, that was in 1976 when the California governor challenged sitting President Gerald Ford for the nomination. Paul spokesman Gary Howard said he didn't think Paul endorsed anyone in 1980, and by 1988 Ron Paul was so disappointed with Ronald Reagan he wanted to "totally disassociate" himself from the president. Paul didn't endorse George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George Bush or John McCain either.

But Rand Paul is not his father. From Hannity:

Governor Romney and I actually have quite a few similarities. Governor Romney's dad ran for president, was unsuccessful, Governor Romney then went on to support the nominee [Nixon] the same way his dad did. Governor Romney comes from a big family, I don't know them that well but I think it's a big loving family, so do I, I come from a family with five kids, Governor Romney has five kids. He's had a long and happy marriage, so have my parents. I think we have a lot of the same family values.

Paul said he met with Romney for about half an hour in DC and that they "talked about a lot of issues." He listed three issues on which there was "kinship": he said Romney was supportive on the campaign trail, and privately to Rand, about auditing the Federal Reserve and bringing more transparency to the central bank. He said Romney opposed SOPA and was "right there with us" on issues of internet freedom. Rand also pointed  out Romney supports the Senator's REINS Act, which tries to bring some regulatory rulemaking authority back to Congress. 

Asked by Hannity if America can "afford" four more years of President Obama, Rand tried to draw out some more differences between Romney and Obama: "[Romney] would bring a more balanced approach to regulation," Rand said. "We're going to have some regulation, some regulation actually protects the environment, but President Obama 's allowed it to tilt and the balance to go so far he's crushing the economy." Rand continued on the energy front: "[H]e will encourage the oil and gas industry and won't say, oh this is terrible that corporations make money. That's the kind of attitude that's making companies want to go overseas."

While Rand Paul said he could "be an asset in solidifying the conservative base of the party" he acknowledged that his and his father's support came not only from conservatives but from young independent voters that "aren't necessarily the conservative base" and are animated by issues of war and peace. Ron Paul's stance on U.S. foreign policy stood in stark contrast to the rest of the GOP field in 2012 and 2008, even though Ron Paul said his foreign policy's not much different from what George W. Bush's was in 2000. To that, Rand ended the interview with this comment:

[Romney and I] had a very good and I think honest discussion about a lot of these [foreign policy] things; and I came away from it feeling he would be a very responsible commander-in-chief, I don't think he'll be reckless, I don't think he'll be rash, and I think that he realizes and believes as I do that war is a last resort and something we don't rush willy-nilly into, and I came away feeling that he'll have mature attitude and beliefs towards foreign policy.

Reason.TV interviews Rand Paul last year:

NEXT: Attention Portland, Oregon-Area Reasonoids! TONIGHT!! Doherty talking Ron Paul's rEVOLution at Powell's on Burnside, Friday June 8 at 7:30 p.m.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. When Squirrels Attack

  2. It’s like deja vu all over again!

  3. Blah blah blah just another politician blah blah blah.

    1. blah blah what exactly is that guy that was an (R) about 6 months ago that is running as an (L) now…blah blah

  4. Giant Douche, got it.

  5. man, the faithful turn on Son of Ron kinda quickly.

    1. Seriously. It’s like watching some guy with an X-acto knife, threatening his own nose while screaming into the mirror: “I’ll do it, man! So help me God, I’ll fucking DO IT — !”

      Purity trolls gotta be pure, I s’pose.

  6. So is Rand Paul now a faux-libertarian, finally been consumed by the Washington beast? Or are we expecting too much from a politician, demanding theological purity?

    1. I’m actually shocked that anyone is surprised by this. By this slight concession to partisan crap, he gets to keep doing many things we approve of. What’s he supposed to do, endorse Johnson? Didn’t we already know that he’s a Republican and not in the LP?

      1. By this slight concession to partisan crap, he gets to keep doing talking about many things we approve of.


        1. Well, he is in the Senate.

        2. I’ll wait to see how he votes. If he continues being an obstructionist to the worst legislation out there, he can ‘endorse’ Newt for all I care.

          1. Wow, its like I said that in the other thread.

            Agree completely.

    2. Was he ever a libertarian?

    3. Certainly after the behavior of the losers in Wisconsin this week, you don’t want Rand bitching and moaning and whining right now, acting like a partisan crybaby.

      Sure there’s a danger than this wing of the GOP will be co-opted like the Tea Party, but to me this looks like Rand Paul practicing his act for a presidential run.

  7. Why does he have to endorse anyone at all?

    1. That’s my perspective. I think this is a political move on his part to get closer to the establishment and possibly win a VP nomination or help with a 2016 presidential run. That said, I find this fairly disgusting. While I would and have gladly voted for Ron Paul, I don’t know if I would vote for Rand.

    2. He doesn’t have to. That’s what gives him leverage. It’s very possible that he got some sort of major concessions out of this. If he did, we obviously won’t know about it for a while and Mittens may well renege, but I don’t see this as a betrayal of his libertarian followers.

      I’m sure he sincerely believes we’ll be better off with Mitt than we would with Obama. If so, why not get the political mileage out of an endorsement? Hell, half the reason staff voted for Obama in 2008. They probably got it wrong, but it wasn’t a betrayal of their ideals.

      And I say all of this as someone who’s probably voting for Johnson.

      1. Hell, half the reason staff voted for Obama in 2008.

        ^ THIS THIS THIS ^ As long as everyone’s seemingly in the mood for a little good old-fashioned excommunication of the heretics anyway

        1. Good point, Duck, and I just don’t get that. Better to vote for nobody than O’Blama.

      2. There’s no reason to assume he’s doing this for any kind of noble, long-term reasons just because he’s expressed anti-statist positions in the past. Besides, it would be difficult to justify any good that comes of it in the face of the immoral damage it does (further legitimizing violent statism). This is how many of the Ron Paul faithful feel. To them, he might as well have endorsed Obama.

        1. Rather, it’s precisely because of his principled, eloquent public defenses of liberty in the past — coupled with his votes in support of same — that one has “no reason to assume he’s doing it” for any base, short-term goal or gain.

          Out in the real world, one’s established resume actually does count for something.

    3. I agree, Sage, as Will Rogers said: Never miss a good opportunity to STFU.

  8. Let the anarcho-purity self-flagellation begin!

  9. Another thing Rand has in common with Mitt: Will do or say anything to become president.

    The apple has rolled into another orchard.

    1. This doesn’t at all show that he’ll do anything to become president, but if he would behave as most of us expect he would as president, and there was something he could have said to make it happen and he refused, then fuck him. If endorsing the guy who’s already got the nomination means we might have Rand Paul in 4 or 8 years instead of Rick fucking Santorum, then I’d be pissed if he didn’t do it.

      1. Horseshit. The guy who stood alone in the Senate against further sanctions on Iran is somehow going to make peace with the guy who wants to bomb Iran to smithereens? Come on. Jesus.

        1. Then your options are to believe that he plans to stop standing alone against sanctions on Iran or that it’s not a real peace between him and the guy who wants to bomb Iran. I tend to believe the latter. You’re welcome to believe the former, but either way, we’ll both see for certain soon enough. If he continues to stand against sanctions and any number of other bullshit illiberal policies, will you recognize the contradiction in continuing to hold the view that he has sold out or will you check your premises?

          1. If you honestly believe that “it’s not a real peace” then you must acknowledge that he’s being duplicitous, and thus pandering to a Republican establishment that’s having its ass handed to it at the state level. Who’s handing the GOP establishment its ass right now? The straight-talking, hard-working, non-compromising Paulites that’s who. And why? Because their adherence to core principles is attracting a wide variety of supporters from across the political spectrum to join the cause. This is precisely the opposite course currently being pursued by the younger Paul. Any attempt to triangulate with the Republican establishment at this point (especially an obviously insincere one) I feel weakens that approach, and tarnishes the image of folks sticking to their guns against a massively corrupt establishment machine. We will just have to disagree on this point it seems, but stop and consider for a moment why Ron Paul and his supporters have been successful at infiltrating the party. It is because they have explicitly disavowed this compromise-with-evil approach.

        2. sorry he does not pass your purity test, but here’s a clue: Rand is part of the Repub Party. Kinda sorta means he will support the Repub nominee for President. Does not mean he will beat the drum for each and every view held by the nominee.

          1. Unlike his dad who’s not in the Repub party?

            1. and even his dad will eventually support Romney, or support no one. Rand gets that substantive change to the DC culture takes time. A Repub president means a greater chance of that than four more Obama years.

              1. Bet you a hundred bucks his dad won’t be endorsing Romney. And this is just red team cheereleading:

                A Repub president means a greater chance of that than four more Obama years.

                In four years, let’s regroup and talk about Romney’s “substantive change.”

          2. A Paul is being accused, in essence, of being insufficiently “Paulite.”

            I’d laugh, if I wasn’t genuinely afraid I’d never be able to stop afterwards. 😉

            1. The name doesn’t make the man, as the younger Paul is now amply demonstrating.

              1. and why do you expect the two to be synonymous? Rand’s timetable is much different from Ron’s; what the father started, the son may well continue but no one knows to what degree.

              2. “You, Rand Paul, are not nearly as Paulite as I am!”

                Really don’t see you winning that argument, in all naked candor… but: reach for it, I guess.

                1. You’re just arguing semantics. I guess “Paul” to you just means someone with Paul genes but that’s obviously not what it means to a vast number of Ron Paul supporters. You know damn well that when someone says “so-and-so is no Paulite” they don’t mean “so-and-so doesn’t have ‘Paul’ as his last name.”

                  1. Missing the point… and by a wide and substantial margin.

                    If you’d prefer to bicker with what you’re pretending I meant, rather than what I plainly and demonstrably wrote: do so, by all means.

                    Just make certain to dispose of those tissues afterwards, is all.

              3. can we at least agree to call them “Paul the Elder” and “Paul the Younger”? Kinda classys up the joint.

  10. Wow, incredible. The left is well known for its attachment to politicians who mouth the correct words, while pursuing policies that can be completely opposite to what they talk about. the Republicans have a similar problem, although slightly less so.

    For everyone freaking out right now – why don’t you watch how Rand Paul votes up to and after the election? If he continues fighting against terrible legislation and pointing out uncomfortable truths, I don’t have a problem with him towing the lion on party crap like this. Worry less about what he says, especially given the obvious politicking of this move – and see what he does. If he gives up on pursuing a freer country in favor of a better personal political career, attack him then.

    1. Also, I couldn’t watch the video, but did he state an affinity for Romney’s policies, or just some happy-crappy about big families / values?

    2. “If he gives up on pursuing a freer country in favor of a better personal political career, attack him then.”

      Precisely what endorsing the Iran-bombing, medical-marijuana-squashing Obamacare progenitor entails.

      1. give it a rest. Romney’s, as you put it, Iran-bombing is more pulling from the party talking point handbook than espousing policy. And, of course, he is against marijuana. BOTH parties have been and likely always will be. Way too much money for govt in the anti-drug industry to do otherwise.

        1. Again his dad would never do this, and yet has somehow managed to stage a state-level coup of the very same party without compromising his core values. Wonder how he managed to do that without “pulling from the party talking point handbook”?

          1. what his dad would or would not do is immaterial. Rand is not his dad; he is his own man. They, no doubt, share much of the same belief system but his career is just starting and perhaps he fancies doing more than being a career outlier who, near the end, sparked the beginning of something.

            As it is, Ron’s true legacy may be the state impact you speak of. Rand’s focus is at the federal level, which is a different beast. Wars can be won using more than one set of tactics.

            1. But you’re missing the point entirely: His dad advanced the cause of limited government arguably more than any other politician in history. And he did it without “pulling from the party talking point handbook.” Again, how did he manage to do that?

              1. His dad advanced the cause of limited government arguably more than any other politician in history.

                I voted for Paul in the primary yet again and would love for him to be president, but that is just crazy talk.

                Moreso than Jefferson? or Madison? or Coolidge? or Henry? I could come up with a couple of dozen more too.

                1. Back to the main point: How did Ron Paul advance the cause of liberty as much as he did? Definitely not by “pulling from the party talking point handbook.” No one seems to want to acknowledge this very salient point.

          2. His Dad endorsed Reagan in 1976. IIRC, Reagan was anti-marijuana.

  11. My first reaction was “Well shit.” but after thinking about it, it was more than likely that Rand would do this. I think it’s pretty likely that this is all part of the strategy of trying to take over the GOP from the inside.

    1. Disagree. At a time when Paulites have taken over many of the state party apparatuses from the outside mind you (i.e. aggressively confronting the establishment without compromise) this idea that they now need to blend into the establishment and temper the message is in my mind a retrograde move, and thus seems more like a personal power play on the part of the Rand “Rolling Apple” Paul.

      1. Come on. An endorsement is about as nonsubstantive as it gets. If he’d done this at the outset, I’d be disturbed, but it’s no big deal now. It’s Romney or Obama. He could simply skip endorsing anyone, but it’s just not worth the fallout.

        He’s done some real good in the Senate and seems to have some small influence there. If every Republican in the Senate were like Rand, the country would be in a whole lot better shape.

      2. you ignore that the prime directive of party politics is winning. What you see as blending into the establishment may well be what Rand sees as “we make nice on most things for now and work out details after the election.”

        Your preferred notion of without compromise while silly since govt usually requires some level of compromise, also creates a distraction narrative – that of party infighting which is then used to bolster King O the First. It is called politics and they all play it. Votes matter more than interviews.

        1. More of this lesser-of-the-two-evils bullshit. Same outlook as those progressives that got fucked by Obama still sticking with “their man”.

          That’s what’s got us to the point we’re at now.

          1. it’s political reality. Paul is a Repub which gives him two choices: back the nominee and work with a president who would actually listen to him, or bitch about the nominee and become both a story of a different sort and a pariah.

            Rand did not run under the LP label. Not endorsing Romney pretty much makes him a lame duck. Also, things move much more slowly in DC than at the state level. Look at how the 80 TP frosh were run over not just by Dems but also Repubs for wanting to buck the system.

            1. The last thing I want to say on this is that the great lesson of the Ron Paul movement is that this man, instead of accepting the political reality around him, and striving to accommodate it, believed that he could change it and in fact did. My hope is that his son does not entirely undo all the good work of the father by displaying himself as a crass political operator instead of a principled leader.

              1. well, you have jumped the shark on that one – post after post practically demands that Rand give up title his own last name for not mirroring Ron adequately enough. Response after response has said Rand’s votes/actions matter far more than his words. The endorsement, in terms of substance, is meaningless. Of course, Rand will give it. He’s a Repub; he would prefer the Repub nominee win the Oval. Gives his mode of thinking a chance; an Obama re-elect leaves him tilting at windmills.

                1. It’s not about mirroring Ron, it’s about presenting himself as a man of principle, rather than a crass political operative as I said before. There’s a very big difference which you are attempting to misrepresent.

      3. What tempering of the message? Ive seen no evidence of that.

    2. It was pretty much assumed that Rand would bite this bullet to protect his future, and so Ron didn’t have to, but I wish he had waited a while longer.

  12. Oooh, he is going to be so grounded…

  13. All the conjecture about why he endorsed Romney is more than strange. He explained why he is endorsing Romney. He obviously thinks this he is the best viable path to a smaller less intrusive government. Why listen to those voices inside your head when none of them are Rand Paul?

    1. Why listen to those voices inside your head when none of them are Rand Paul?

      “Cocaine Rigid doctrinal purity is a helluva drug, I guess.”

    2. Smaller and less intrusive? Compared to the status quo, or compared to Obama 4 years from now?

  14. Breaking News!!!

    Rand Paul is a Republican!

  15. Rand is a Republican. If he wants any future in the party, he has to endorse Romney. I don’t know whether the “work within the party” strategy is viable, but it definitely can’t work if you alienate everyone else in the party.

    1. Like the Paulites who took over the state party machines took care not to “alienate” the establishment.

      1. Actually yes, they are trying not to alienate them. They want to work with them, just with new leadership.

    2. To be fair, he doesn’t have to endorse anyone.

  16. Paul was so disappointed with Ronald Reagan he wanted to “totally disassociate” himself from the president. Paul didn’t endorse George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George Bush or John McCain either.

    In other words, he paid attention and realized they were all just as bad or nearly so or worse than their Democratic opponents.

  17. Rand endorses Mitt, calls off the Paulites at the convention, and gets a prime speaking spot to play Barack Obama 2004.

    It’s smart politicking.

  18. That seemed like a very muffled endorsement.

    1. Exactly. There are a few folks here up in arms over this, but I think Rand was as diplomatic as could be about the whole thing.

      ‘Tis better for Rand to succeed than for him to fail, and this helps his future aspirations.

  19. And, of course — Cancel my subscription!

  20. TPAW, it seems that he thinks Romney would be better than Obama. Lot’s of posters around here think that.

    Who knows, it might even be true.

  21. So has Lew formally expelled him from polite society yet?

    1. Evidently, he’s already being disowned from all family lands, titles and get, via the ever-helpful proxy (doubtless) of interested others, on his father’s unstated behalf.

      “I’m from an online message board, and I’m here to help.”

  22. Oh, that’s why everyone on Facebook was calling Rand a traitor.

    But it’s pretty obvious what’s going. He’s totally positioning himself for a presidential run down the line. Just look at that first quote:

    Governor Romney’s dad ran for president, was unsuccessful, Governor Romney then went on to support the nominee [Nixon] the same way his dad did.

    The unspoken subtext is, of course, that Romney supported the eventual winner, and is now the nominee and hopefully the next president. Rand wants to duplicate all those steps.

    1. And skip the parts where he says his wife drives multiple cadillacs, his friends own NASCAR teams, and he bets the future governor of Texas a hundred grand that he’s right about his facts on the Fed.

  23. But it’s pretty obvious what’s going. He’s totally positioning himself for a presidential run down the line.

    Sanity. Thank you.

  24. Fuck you Rand.

    If Ron Paul wins the nomination, I will vote Republican.

    If Mitt-doesn’t-fit Romney wins, I will wholeheartedly vote for Gary Johnson.

  25. Disappointed… So this is how those Liberals felt after Walker recall results. *Yummy Paul-Supporter tears* and all that.

    Rand still has been a powerful force for Liberty and this endorsement does not diminish that.

  26. Awwwwwwww… can’t we spend just a little more time shrieking and blubbering and drumming our heels on the linoleum, over Rand’s stubborn insistence upon excising a demonstrable cancer from the office of the presidency? Pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaaassssssse…?!?

  27. To paraphrase Rand Paul, his support for waffling, flip-flopping, lying Mitt couldn’t get any gayer.

  28. See? Just like that, right there, above! Perfect! Only with slightly less petulant waving about of one’s sippy cup!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.