Rumor: Ron Paul to endorse Gary Johnson on the Tonight Show, Tuesday.

[Marokai Backbeat]

What a coward.

Please elaborate.

Some people, even some on this site, praise Ron Paul like he's such a hero leading a noble cause. He's spent his entire time in the last two presidential primaries bitching about establishment Republicanism, something Mitt Romney exudes, and, as I'm sure everyone knows, even ran as a Libertarian himself in 1988. No one with half a brain, surely, thinks that Ron Paul actually likes Mitt Romney over Gary Johnson. He just doesn't want to upset the Republican Party and make things difficult for his son. Granted, it's not as pansy-ass as his "I endorse voting your conscience!" BS from 2008, but it's still a weak move from someone who has, if nothing else, an "honest" persona.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

What a coward.

Please elaborate.

Some people, even some on this site, praise Ron Paul like he's such a hero leading a noble cause. He's spent his entire time in the last two presidential primaries bitching about establishment Republicanism, something Mitt Romney exudes, and, as I'm sure everyone knows, even ran as a Libertarian himself in 1988. No one with half a brain, surely, thinks that Ron Paul actually likes Mitt Romney over Gary Johnson. He just doesn't want to upset the Republican Party and make things difficult for his son. Granted, it's not as pansy-ass as his "I endorse voting your conscience!" BS from 2008, but it's still a weak move from someone who has, if nothing else, an "honest" persona.

I can see your point, though I disagree. His "vote your conscience" was meant to give third party candidates of all stripes attention. It did not work. He won't be endorsing anyone this time around. He is hosting LPAC in Virginia next month, which should be interesting.

[Vosem]

I can see reasons why Paul wouldn't've endorsed Romney at the RNC; he would have also speaken at length about things they probably don't want even mentioned. And calling him a coward is just another way of saying you don't like what he's doing; Ron Paul understands political tactics, and it's easy to believe he prefers Romney to Obama and believes Johnson has no chance.

After all, Marokai, Jill Stein is closer to your ideological beliefs but you still support Obama. Why? Because he has a better chance at winning.

You can bitch all you want about how if people vote their conscience then the two-party system will collapse, but people aren't going to vote their conscience. Why? Because of the two-party system. It's self-perpetuating.

[Marokai Backbeat]

After all, Marokai, Jill Stein is closer to your ideological beliefs but you still support Obama. Why? Because he has a better chance at winning.

You can bitch all you want about how if people vote their conscience then the two-party system will collapse, but people aren't going to vote their conscience. Why? Because of the two-party system. It's self-perpetuating.

A fair point, but Gary Johnson has a better chance at getting attention and votes than Jill Stein does, and I make no secret of the fact that I'm not voting for Jill Stein solely because of our two party system. It is self-perpetuating, but at least I'm being honest about it, unlike Ron Paul.

[King]

Marokai is right.  Paul is a coward.

If Ron Paul had attacked Mitt Romney during the primaries, he would not have been the nominee.  He was the only one in the field of Anti-Romneys with both the money and organization to do it and he was dead silent.  And it wasn't out of nobility of not attacking other candidates, because he used these powers to help destroy Rick Perry in debates and advertisements in the Fall of 2011.

[SPC]

Marokai is right.  Paul is a coward.

If Ron Paul had attacked Mitt Romney during the primaries, he would not have been the nominee.  He was the only one in the field of Anti-Romneys with both the money and organization to do it and he was dead silent.  And it wasn't out of nobility of not attacking other candidates, because he used these powers to help destroy Rick Perry in debates and advertisements in the Fall of 2011.

To play devil's advocate, it's not like Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich would have been more desirable choices for Ron Paul than Mitt Romney. Unless you think Ron Paul could have been the nominee by attacking Romney's record and simply chose not to.

[King]

Marokai is right.  Paul is a coward.

If Ron Paul had attacked Mitt Romney during the primaries, he would not have been the nominee.  He was the only one in the field of Anti-Romneys with both the money and organization to do it and he was dead silent.  And it wasn't out of nobility of not attacking other candidates, because he used these powers to help destroy Rick Perry in debates and advertisements in the Fall of 2011.

To play devil's advocate, it's not like Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich would have been more desirable choices for Ron Paul than Mitt Romney. Unless you think Ron Paul could have been the nominee by attacking Romney's record and simply chose not to.

Paul wouldn't have been marginalized in a Santorum or Gingrich nominating convention.  He would have been able to build solid voice over the GOP platform and he would have had a great shot to be a meaningful third party candidate with a divisive major party nominee as opposed to a boring one.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Marokai is right.  Paul is a coward.

If Ron Paul had attacked Mitt Romney during the primaries, he would not have been the nominee.  He was the only one in the field of Anti-Romneys with both the money and organization to do it and he was dead silent.  And it wasn't out of nobility of not attacking other candidates, because he used these powers to help destroy Rick Perry in debates and advertisements in the Fall of 2011.

To play devil's advocate, it's not like Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich would have been more desirable choices for Ron Paul than Mitt Romney. Unless you think Ron Paul could have been the nominee by attacking Romney's record and simply chose not to.

Paul wouldn't have been marginalized in a Santorum or Gingrich nominating convention.  He would have been able to build solid voice over the GOP platform and he would have had a great shot to be a meaningful third party candidate with a divisive major party nominee as opposed to a boring one.

Yes, but Paul has Rand to deal with. I don't blame him for what he has done so far. The base for Rand should be enough to give him the nomination in 2016 if a serious effort is made (which means Ron Paul's special needs grandson-in-law/campaign manager Jesse Benton should be shafted). This campaign never was about winning, as I just realized a few days ago.

Is that a cowardly thing? I don't think so. I guess Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and other activist candidates are cowards too, with that logic.

[King]

Marokai is right.  Paul is a coward.

If Ron Paul had attacked Mitt Romney during the primaries, he would not have been the nominee.  He was the only one in the field of Anti-Romneys with both the money and organization to do it and he was dead silent.  And it wasn't out of nobility of not attacking other candidates, because he used these powers to help destroy Rick Perry in debates and advertisements in the Fall of 2011.

To play devil's advocate, it's not like Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich would have been more desirable choices for Ron Paul than Mitt Romney. Unless you think Ron Paul could have been the nominee by attacking Romney's record and simply chose not to.

Paul wouldn't have been marginalized in a Santorum or Gingrich nominating convention.  He would have been able to build solid voice over the GOP platform and he would have had a great shot to be a meaningful third party candidate with a divisive major party nominee as opposed to a boring one.

Yes, but Paul has Rand to deal with. I don't blame him for what he has done so far. The base for Rand should be enough to give him the nomination in 2016 if a serious effort is made (which means Ron Paul's special needs grandson-in-law/campaign manager Jesse Benton should be shafted). This campaign never was about winning, as I just realized a few days ago.

Is that a cowardly thing? I don't think so. I guess Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and other activist candidates are cowards too, with that logic.

If Paul really had stones, he wouldn't have to worry about Rand.  The Paulites would be closer to control of the party if Romney had been defeated in the primaries because the establishment would have been defeated.  Now? I can't say his ideology is any closer to having a voice in the GOP than it was when he started back this 'Rloveution' back in 2007.

Comparing Paul to Kucinich and Gravel is an insult to Paul.  Paul had far more money and manpower in his campaign than those two jokes ever did.  Ron Paul is basically content with being a joke when he had the resources to do more.  It is cowardly.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Marokai is right.  Paul is a coward.

If Ron Paul had attacked Mitt Romney during the primaries, he would not have been the nominee.  He was the only one in the field of Anti-Romneys with both the money and organization to do it and he was dead silent.  And it wasn't out of nobility of not attacking other candidates, because he used these powers to help destroy Rick Perry in debates and advertisements in the Fall of 2011.

To play devil's advocate, it's not like Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich would have been more desirable choices for Ron Paul than Mitt Romney. Unless you think Ron Paul could have been the nominee by attacking Romney's record and simply chose not to.

Paul wouldn't have been marginalized in a Santorum or Gingrich nominating convention.  He would have been able to build solid voice over the GOP platform and he would have had a great shot to be a meaningful third party candidate with a divisive major party nominee as opposed to a boring one.

Yes, but Paul has Rand to deal with. I don't blame him for what he has done so far. The base for Rand should be enough to give him the nomination in 2016 if a serious effort is made (which means Ron Paul's special needs grandson-in-law/campaign manager Jesse Benton should be shafted). This campaign never was about winning, as I just realized a few days ago.

Is that a cowardly thing? I don't think so. I guess Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and other activist candidates are cowards too, with that logic.

If Paul really had stones, he wouldn't have to worry about Rand.  The Paulites would be closer to control of the party if Romney had been defeated in the primaries because the establishment would have been defeated.  Now? I can't say his ideology is any closer to having a voice in the GOP than it was when he started back this 'Rloveution' back in 2007.

Oh, but Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Justin Amash, as well as Jim DeMint don't count as voices? They are not strong voices, but they are voices none the less. The Paul faction is much stronger, and is ready for 2016. Most of them are well informed, and don't need Paul to tell them who to vote for.

[King]

Marokai is right.  Paul is a coward.

If Ron Paul had attacked Mitt Romney during the primaries, he would not have been the nominee.  He was the only one in the field of Anti-Romneys with both the money and organization to do it and he was dead silent.  And it wasn't out of nobility of not attacking other candidates, because he used these powers to help destroy Rick Perry in debates and advertisements in the Fall of 2011.

To play devil's advocate, it's not like Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich would have been more desirable choices for Ron Paul than Mitt Romney. Unless you think Ron Paul could have been the nominee by attacking Romney's record and simply chose not to.

Paul wouldn't have been marginalized in a Santorum or Gingrich nominating convention.  He would have been able to build solid voice over the GOP platform and he would have had a great shot to be a meaningful third party candidate with a divisive major party nominee as opposed to a boring one.

Yes, but Paul has Rand to deal with. I don't blame him for what he has done so far. The base for Rand should be enough to give him the nomination in 2016 if a serious effort is made (which means Ron Paul's special needs grandson-in-law/campaign manager Jesse Benton should be shafted). This campaign never was about winning, as I just realized a few days ago.

Is that a cowardly thing? I don't think so. I guess Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and other activist candidates are cowards too, with that logic.

If Paul really had stones, he wouldn't have to worry about Rand.  The Paulites would be closer to control of the party if Romney had been defeated in the primaries because the establishment would have been defeated.  Now? I can't say his ideology is any closer to having a voice in the GOP than it was when he started back this 'Rloveution' back in 2007.

Oh, but Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Justin Amash, as well as Jim DeMint don't count as voices? They are not strong voices, but they are voices none the less. The Paul faction is much stronger, and is ready for 2016. Most of them are well informed, and don't need Paul to tell them who to vote for.

Those people are not Ron Paul.  They do not hold the full ideology of Paul.  Even if they were, 3-4 people  is not a real voice in a political party.  If Ron Paul died tomorrow, his message would be buried with him.  "Ready for 2016" is the same thing I heard in 2008.   Paulism is not going to make a dent in 2016 either because Ron Paul balked at the opportunity to move it forward.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Not endorsing Gary Johnson was not a coward thing to do. It was the courageous thing to do. Rand would make the message go forward in his own way. Remember with Rand, the apple doesn't fall far away from the tree that brought it into existence.

[mondale84]

Not endorsing Gary Johnson was not a coward thing to do. It was the courageous thing to do. Rand would make the message go forward in his own way. Remember with Rand, the apple doesn't fall far away from the tree that brought it into existence.

Rand isn't even a libertarian. He's a conservative social reactionary with contrarian economic proposals. There's a reason the Paulites hate him. I agree with King, Ron Paul is a coward who betrayed his supporters by half-assing his way through the primaries and undermining Gingrich/Santorum/Perry/etc. enough so that Romney could win. He was no better than a Romney lackey because he made no effort to expand his appeal beyond his small group of devoted, hapless, and helpless followers.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well I suppose the neckbearded, mouth-breathing, basement-dwelling world of warcraft-playing idiots of this world have a right to have someone to vote for. Though they would, you know, have to go outside in order to cast their ballot, and that might be psychologically difficult for the little darlings.

[SPC]

Marokai is right.  Paul is a coward.

If Ron Paul had attacked Mitt Romney during the primaries, he would not have been the nominee.  He was the only one in the field of Anti-Romneys with both the money and organization to do it and he was dead silent.  And it wasn't out of nobility of not attacking other candidates, because he used these powers to help destroy Rick Perry in debates and advertisements in the Fall of 2011.

To play devil's advocate, it's not like Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich would have been more desirable choices for Ron Paul than Mitt Romney. Unless you think Ron Paul could have been the nominee by attacking Romney's record and simply chose not to.

Paul wouldn't have been marginalized in a Santorum or Gingrich nominating convention.  He would have been able to build solid voice over the GOP platform and he would have had a great shot to be a meaningful third party candidate with a divisive major party nominee as opposed to a boring one.

What do you base this on? Both of them have stated that they want to eliminate libertarian influence within the party. The only benefit I can see from elevating their position would be for a scorched earth strategy.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Marokai is right.  Paul is a coward.

If Ron Paul had attacked Mitt Romney during the primaries, he would not have been the nominee.  He was the only one in the field of Anti-Romneys with both the money and organization to do it and he was dead silent.  And it wasn't out of nobility of not attacking other candidates, because he used these powers to help destroy Rick Perry in debates and advertisements in the Fall of 2011.

To play devil's advocate, it's not like Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich would have been more desirable choices for Ron Paul than Mitt Romney. Unless you think Ron Paul could have been the nominee by attacking Romney's record and simply chose not to.

Paul wouldn't have been marginalized in a Santorum or Gingrich nominating convention.  He would have been able to build solid voice over the GOP platform and he would have had a great shot to be a meaningful third party candidate with a divisive major party nominee as opposed to a boring one.

Yes, but Paul has Rand to deal with. I don't blame him for what he has done so far. The base for Rand should be enough to give him the nomination in 2016 if a serious effort is made (which means Ron Paul's special needs grandson-in-law/campaign manager Jesse Benton should be shafted). This campaign never was about winning, as I just realized a few days ago.

Is that a cowardly thing? I don't think so. I guess Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and other activist candidates are cowards too, with that logic.

If Paul really had stones, he wouldn't have to worry about Rand.  The Paulites would be closer to control of the party if Romney had been defeated in the primaries because the establishment would have been defeated.  Now? I can't say his ideology is any closer to having a voice in the GOP than it was when he started back this 'Rloveution' back in 2007.

Oh, but Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Justin Amash, as well as Jim DeMint don't count as voices? They are not strong voices, but they are voices none the less. The Paul faction is much stronger, and is ready for 2016. Most of them are well informed, and don't need Paul to tell them who to vote for.

Those people are not Ron Paul.  They do not hold the full ideology of Paul.  Even if they were, 3-4 people  is not a real voice in a political party.  If Ron Paul died tomorrow, his message would be buried with him.  "Ready for 2016" is the same thing I heard in 2008.   Paulism is not going to make a dent in 2016 either because Ron Paul balked at the opportunity to move it forward.

Does Rand Paul not appeal to mainstream Republicans more than Ron? 2008 to 2012 was Ron to Ron. And the point of it was to strengthen the Ron to Rand transition. If Rand does not run, Gary Johnson will. And if Johnson does not, Walter Jones will, etc.

[Cobbler]

I also hold the position that Ron Paul was cowardly. And this is coming from someone that really wanted him to do well this cycle. I don't see why people think its okay for him to sell out his true convictions just to help out a family member. To me, that doesn't sound like an honest politician; its one of those things I dislike about politics. This is something about the Ron Paul movement that I have a problem with: I have a strong feeling that it isn't about the ideology so much as it is about Ron Paul. This move by Paul makes it seem to be more of as a dynasty to me rather than a political movement; like if a Paul isn't leading the movement, then the movement would die off with them.

What I admired about Ron Paul was that he stuck to his beliefs and took on the establishment, no matter what. This election, he basically decided to be the establishments attack dog to help a family member, which I don't admire very much. Gary Johnson supported Paul in the primaries over and over again, and is currently an available choice for promoting views very similar to Paul's. He could influence the debate this cycle if he was able to have access to Paul's support. Ron Paul could show the Republican Party that the liberty movement cannot be ignored if he made Johnson a force this election, but instead he is essentially deciding to sell out his beliefs to help out his son? That strikes a nepotistic tone that diminishes my opinion of Ron Paul.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I also hold the position that Ron Paul was cowardly. And this is coming from someone that really wanted him to do well this cycle. I don't see why people think its okay for him to sell out his true convictions just to help out a family member. To me, that doesn't sound like an honest politician; its one of those things I dislike about politics. This is something about the Ron Paul movement that I have a problem with: I have a strong feeling that it isn't about the ideology so much as it is about Ron Paul. This move by Paul makes it seem to be more of as a dynasty to me rather than a political movement; like if a Paul isn't leading the movement, then the movement would die off with them.

What I admired about Ron Paul was that he stuck to his beliefs and took on the establishment, no matter what. This election, he basically decided to be the establishments attack dog to help a family member, which I don't admire very much. Gary Johnson supported Paul in the primaries over and over again, and is currently an available choice for promoting views very similar to Paul's. He could influence the debate this cycle if he was able to have access to Paul's support. Ron Paul could show the Republican Party that the liberty movement cannot be ignored if he made Johnson a force this election, but instead he is essentially deciding to sell out his beliefs to help out his son? That strikes a nepotistic tone that diminishes my opinion of Ron Paul.

Once again, I think the whole point of the campaign was to build the base. Ron Paul never intended to win, and we should of known that from the start. I wish I caught on. Ron Paul did nothing cowardly-this was a simple political exercise, and a flexing of his muscles. And those muscles are going to be ripped when Rand leads the Revolution to victory come 2016

[King]

I also hold the position that Ron Paul was cowardly. And this is coming from someone that really wanted him to do well this cycle. I don't see why people think its okay for him to sell out his true convictions just to help out a family member. To me, that doesn't sound like an honest politician; its one of those things I dislike about politics. This is something about the Ron Paul movement that I have a problem with: I have a strong feeling that it isn't about the ideology so much as it is about Ron Paul. This move by Paul makes it seem to be more of as a dynasty to me rather than a political movement; like if a Paul isn't leading the movement, then the movement would die off with them.

What I admired about Ron Paul was that he stuck to his beliefs and took on the establishment, no matter what. This election, he basically decided to be the establishments attack dog to help a family member, which I don't admire very much. Gary Johnson supported Paul in the primaries over and over again, and is currently an available choice for promoting views very similar to Paul's. He could influence the debate this cycle if he was able to have access to Paul's support. Ron Paul could show the Republican Party that the liberty movement cannot be ignored if he made Johnson a force this election, but instead he is essentially deciding to sell out his beliefs to help out his son? That strikes a nepotistic tone that diminishes my opinion of Ron Paul.

Once again, I think the whole point of the campaign was to build the base. Ron Paul never intended to win, and we should of known that from the start. I wish I caught on. Ron Paul did nothing cowardly-this was a simple political exercise, and a flexing of his muscles. And those muscles are going to be ripped when Rand leads the Revolution to victory come 2016

What better way to build the base than to have them vote third party instead of for Romney until their ideas are included in the GOP platform?

[Donerail]

I also hold the position that Ron Paul was cowardly. And this is coming from someone that really wanted him to do well this cycle. I don't see why people think its okay for him to sell out his true convictions just to help out a family member. To me, that doesn't sound like an honest politician; its one of those things I dislike about politics. This is something about the Ron Paul movement that I have a problem with: I have a strong feeling that it isn't about the ideology so much as it is about Ron Paul. This move by Paul makes it seem to be more of as a dynasty to me rather than a political movement; like if a Paul isn't leading the movement, then the movement would die off with them.

What I admired about Ron Paul was that he stuck to his beliefs and took on the establishment, no matter what. This election, he basically decided to be the establishments attack dog to help a family member, which I don't admire very much. Gary Johnson supported Paul in the primaries over and over again, and is currently an available choice for promoting views very similar to Paul's. He could influence the debate this cycle if he was able to have access to Paul's support. Ron Paul could show the Republican Party that the liberty movement cannot be ignored if he made Johnson a force this election, but instead he is essentially deciding to sell out his beliefs to help out his son? That strikes a nepotistic tone that diminishes my opinion of Ron Paul.

Once again, I think the whole point of the campaign was to build the base. Ron Paul never intended to win, and we should of known that from the start. I wish I caught on. Ron Paul did nothing cowardly-this was a simple political exercise, and a flexing of his muscles. And those muscles are going to be ripped when Rand leads the Revolution to victory come 2016

Although, Rand is pro-Gitmo, anti-abortion, and opposed to gay marriage. Is he really the right man to lead?

[5280]

I think if he doesn't support Gary Johnson in the end, he's going to either bite himself in the rear or lose some support from his base.  The only way he could redeem himself is his son changing positions, which I doubt would happen.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Dirty little secret: there are divisions within libertarianism.
That people think that Ron Paul most not have endorsed Gary Johnson only out of interest for his son's political career just shows they don't understand the extent of this.

[LiberalJunkie]

Nope.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Bummer.

[Cobbler]

Disappointing that he didn't endorse. With his profile now, he'd have an impact on the race, which would definitely make the GOP listen up more to the libertarians than being quiet will. Maybe its not so good for Rand's future, but it could be more effective for his ideology's future.