Many of my friends in the liberty movement are sharing an article on Facebook from Examiner.com (anyone can write for this website) titled “Paul Not Given Role at Republican Convention.”
Lew Rockwell sourced this Examiner article in his post titled “Ron Paul Barred From Speaking at Fascist RNC Convention in Tampa.“
Look at his original source: CNN. The CNN article only lists some of the keynote speakers. It’s an incomplete list! The article even mentions that there are names that have not been announced in the first roll out of convention speakers. There will surely be more speakers that they haven’t announced yet.
The CNN article also says nothing about Ron Paul. Nothing about him being invited to speak and nothing about him being barred from speaking.
As far as I can tell, there is no solid evidence that Ron Paul is barred from speaking at the RNC convention.
I don’t know if Ron Paul will be invited to speak or not (I highly doubt he will endorse Mitt Romney which may be a prerequisite to speak) but I say we should hold our judgement until the full list is released to the public. And yes, Ron Paul should be on that list.
Edit: The CNN article says nothing about Rand Paul either. I would be very surprised if Rand does not get a speaking slot.
Edit: From the Washington Post: “Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has announced an initial list of seven prominent Republicans who will speak at the party’s national convention in Tampa later this month. But the list, which includes five current and former governors, a U.S. senator, and a former secretary of state does not include either Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) or his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). The list will be built out in the coming weeks, but it’s still worth exploring where the Pauls – two figures with intense national followings – fit in at Mitt Romney’s nominating convention.”
Senator Rand Paul recently endorsed Mitt Romney on the Sean Hannity Show on FOX. Does this make him a sell out? Or did he compromise politically to advance liberty?
New video. The Iowa Caucus was actually a three-way tie between Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul delegate wise. All three got 7 delegates.
Mitt Romney refused to take a position on government unions and the individual mandate on a recent campaign trip to Ohio. He visited a phone bank filled with volunteers making phone calls in support of two critical November 8 ballot issues, Issue 2 and 3, which will reduce the scope of government in the Buckeye State. Issue 2 would uphold the legislation restricting collective bargaining for government employees and issue 3 would protect Ohio residents from ObamaCare’s individual health insurance mandate. Instead of applauding these citizen activists for their efforts, Mitt Romney declined to comment on these ballot issues.
Mitt put himself in an awkward situation. His actions as governor of Massachusetts indicate that he would reject the ballot issue which prohibits any level of government from forcing residents to purchase health insurance. He instituted an individual mandate in his state calling it a “conservative idea” in 2006. Issue 3 in Ohio blatantly states that, “no federal, state, or local law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.” The individual mandate is a violation of personal liberty whether it is on the federal, state or local level.
He is now backpedaling on Issue 2 saying that he is indeed supportive of the law. This comes after backlash from fiscal conservatives around the nation. Mitt who seems to support anything that will help get him elected had to change his unpopular opinion. It’s become virtually impossible to keep up with Mitt Romney’s flip-flopping over the years. Consistency is simply not his strong suit.
The goal should be to get Obama out of the White House but we shouldn’t have to settle for Mitt Romney. Just because a candidate has an “R” after his or her name doesn’t necessarily mean they uphold constitutional values. Yes, let’s make Obama a one-term president. But let’s replace him with someone better, much better. What’s the point of swapping Obama with a Republican who’s likely to continue the same tax and spend policies?
I don’t want a Republican Obama. Mitt Romney might use slightly different rhetoric than Obama but many of their policies are the same. Like Obama, Romney has endorsed Cap and Trade, raising the minimum wage, smoking bans, TARP, energy subsidies, the so-called “stimulus”, various tax hikes and government run health care plans. The policy difference between Obama and Romney are few and far in between.
I’m not a cheerleader for the Republican Party. Blind partisanship is part of the reason we’re in this fiscal mess to begin with. The Grand Old Party lost their way when they started advocating for Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, TARP bank bailouts and other big government policies that exploded our national debt—all of which Mitt Romney supported. We ought to be principled enough to call out both Democrats and Republicans when they are wrong.
Mitt Romney is part of the problem—not the solution. Some people tell me that I should stop criticizing the admittedly “imperfect” Mitt Romney because he is “electable.” I have yet to see a credible poll showing that Mitt can actually beat Obama but let’s say he does win. Then what? Will we see any substantive changes in the right direction or will we continue down the same path of financial ruin? The latter is more likely given Mitt’s terrible record.
Fiscal conservatives have better options than Mitt Romney. Obama is tanking in the polls and Americans are overwhelmingly more open to the ideas of individual liberty than they have been in a very long time. 2012 is the year for a true limited government candidate to shine. We shouldn’t have to settle for a big government Mitt Romney type when a better candidate can and should replace Obama. (Hint: Ron Paul).