Quotes of the day

posted at 10:35 pm on February 23, 2012 by Allahpundit

“‘You have to ask Congressman Paul and Governor Romney what they’ve got going together,’ Santorum told reporters in the spin room in Mesa, Arizona. ‘Their commercials look a lot alike and so do their attacks.’

“Santorum’s top strategist John Brabender went even further, charging that the two men had ‘joined forces’ and were coordinating attacks against his man

“‘Clearly there’s a tag team strategy between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. For all I know, Mitt Romney might be considering Ron Paul as his running mate. Clearly there is now an alliance between those two and you saw that certainly in the debate.’…

“The Romney campaign ridiculed the notion there was any coordination. ‘If ever there was an iconoclast who got up there and said what he believed, it’s Ron Paul,’ said Stuart Stevens, Romney’s chief strategist.”

***

“Paul’s spokesman denies this, noting that they have spent millions on four television ads attacking Romney, but there does seem to be something, prima facie, to their conduct during debates, if one assumes that the alliance would preclude Paul from criticizing Romney in debates. In the previous seven debates, going back to the January 7 New Hampshire debate, Ron Paul has only attacked Mitt Romney once

“Paul’s kid-gloved treatment of Romney in the debates so far doesn’t necessarily say anything about their relationship, but it seems like, of late, Paul has been notably kind to the race’s front-runner.”

***

“And now, Paul’s national campaign chairman, Jesse Benton, confirms that the decision last week by the two campaigns to skip a March 1 CNN debate in Georgia was a closely-coordinated one.

“Benton, asked on MSNBC Thursday afternoon to detail the specifics on how the two candidates have cooperated during the campaign:

“‘A lot of it just comes down to scheduling. Both of our campaigns, for example, had places, specific places we wanted our candidates to be on March 1st, and they weren’t in Georgia. Other states that were priorities for us. And so we talked it out and we said, ‘Hey, let’s present a united front and make sure our candidates can get where they need to be rather than being at the 22nd or 23rd debate in Georgia.’ That’s how we cooperate.’”

***

“Senator Rand Paul first discussed his higher aspirations at the beginning of this year. He said he wouldn’t close the door on being a Vice Presidential candidate. After a speech in Louisville today, Paul held that door firmly open, saying he wants to be part of the national debate.

“Paul’s name has swirled as a possible pick that would give Romney points with the Tea Party. When asked directly what he would say if Romney made the offer, Paul tried to punt.

“I don’t know if I can answer that question, but I can say it would be an honor to be considered,’ he said.”

***

“Of course, this could be much ado about nothing — just a politician answering a question. On the other hand, it is sure to spark more speculation that some sort of deal may be in the works between the Romney and Paul camps. It’s not as if Ron Paul’s campaign hasn’t stoked speculation. As the Dallas Morning News reported, Paul’s national campaign chairman, Jesse Benton, recently said: ‘Any Republican should have Rand Paul on his short list.’

“On the surface, tapping Paul as veep might not make sense. But conservatives are refusing to go along and eat the dog food with Romney — and adding Rand Paul to the ticket would fire conservatives up – and ensure that Ron Paul drops any plans to launch a 3rd party challenge. And just imagine if Romney arrives at the GOP convention needing some of Paul’s delegates to win the nomination?

“It’s not an absurd idea.”

***

Via the Daily Rushbo.

***

Ingraham: Hey, Governor, when you watched this last night, did you take away this impression that some are taking away — and I think I stated this a couple days ago on the show — that your Texas compatriot there, Ron Paul, seems to be, you know, guarding the flank for Romney. He seemed to go in at various junctures and either amplify Romney’s points or try to take Santorum out at the knees on issues that clearly benefit the would-be frontrunner Mitt Romney. Do you get the sense that there’s an unspoken alliance there?

Perry: You know, I don’t know whether there is an alliance there or not, but that’s been the case all through the debates, all 20 of them I might add. That Ron Paul and Mitt Romney had a really interesting partnership, let us call it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

You’d hope discussion of policy would trump discussion of petty rumor and gossip.

Louisvillian on February 24, 2012 at 8:43 AM

Are you nuts? If they start discussing domestic policy, they might realize that Ron Paul is actually talking sense. In the age of Goldman Sachs, we can’t have any of it.

Archivarix on February 24, 2012 at 8:47 AM

(I’ve got to enjoy this moment : ) . . . )

listens2glenn on February 24, 2012 at 7:38 AM

Me too.. :-) But to be honest, I don’t feel any animosity toward you when we disagree. You don’t call me names, stalk my kids, or obsess on me 24/7/365. I think disagreement is healthy and when the primary is over, we will be supporting our nominee 100% in lock step.

csdeven on February 24, 2012 at 8:52 AM

So Paul is nice to the very man that has economically endangered our survival as a capitalist nation with his Oromneycare. Just this week, he vowed to punish the rich 1% (sounds just like Obama wrote his script)
This reduces the “independent true conservative” Paul to just another flip-flopping compromising politician -anything to get ahead -principle is for the useful idiots to belive in.

Don L on February 24, 2012 at 8:22 AM

You’re confused. Massachusetts is a state.

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 8:54 AM

…they might realize that Ron Paul is actually talking sense…

Archivarix on February 24, 2012 at 8:47 AM

That’s one thing that makes me wary of Paul… He’s all talk, no achievement. He’s been ineffective in congress for decades.

Paul has been good at trashing Romney’s more conservative competition. But that’s always been Paul’s modus operandi, at least when the battle mattered. He dumps on the more conservative side.

Paul is like libertarians. They decry conservatives as ineffective. The irony is that both Paul and libertarians themselves are utterly ineffective at achieving their professed aims.

shinty on February 24, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Boo-hoo-hoo tough guy Santorum lashes out with his pathetic “best” shot, bigot that he is, trashing Romney for attacking Santorum by asserting a conspiracy against him from the likes of the Mormon-Rockefeller allied with the Goldwater-Republican. Ooooo, look out for satan!

….

That Santorum can’t defend himself, but resorts to whining, proves his inability to fulfill the requirements of the POTUS, crumbling under duress in debate, then attempting to smear those who legitimately attacked his record.

maverick muse on February 24, 2012 at 8:20 AM

Couldn’t agree more.

Syzygy on February 24, 2012 at 9:22 AM

listens2glenn on February 24, 2012 at 8:31 AM

In short, revising our identity to be as any Empire is a crime against ourselves, and against all of the ideals, lives and sacrifices which birthed our Constitutional Government.

We Americans are inundated by immediacy filled with whole cloth “news”. Domestically and internationally, American voters persistently vote for more as if bigger is better, as if “too big to fail” is trustworthy.

Unless we live abroad, we only “know” what we’re being told; and were we wise, we’d verify rather than trust any propaganda. Even if we live abroad, we only “know” what we experience as a foreigner in a strange land, which would not be as indigenous within the region.

As stated here yesterday, Americans like you and I don’t know squat unless we truly conduct our own scholarly research of history.

We have been conditioned to think that we “deserve” our comfort so much that our patience being worn out, hatred” is justified against perceived threats. The norm advanced is genocide — the neoconservative norm aligning with the same mindset it evolved from, Lenin authoritarian.

We’re not even aware of what our own intelligence community is doing, and has been doing for the past century. Most of us don’t want to know, and will deny whatever makes us feel uncomfortable to acknowledge. Well intended or not, given cause and effect, blow back is what America experiences from interventionism. As Fred Thompson pointed out on many occasions regarding policy, never plunge into the unknown. Always weigh every possible consequence and alternative before determining a policy, and base the policy on the long term affects, not the fallacious “quick fix” that makes matters worse tomorrow.

Given America’s establishment on unalienable rights of humanity, no people have the “right” to dictate impositions on others.

For a century already since Wilson’s administration, our national intelligence community has been conducting revolutionary warfare abroad. Every election cycle, foreign policy mutates. What forces that US taxpayers fund abroad one day, becomes our foe.

Our CIA instigated al-Qaeda that GWBush insisted was America’s #1 Enemy, that Obama aligns our Military with today in the Middle East in order to overthrow every nation’s government there. THAT is insanity.

If any Republican promotes chaos, it’s neoconservative.

maverick muse on February 24, 2012 at 9:32 AM

That’s one thing that makes me wary of Paul… He’s all talk, no achievement. He’s been ineffective in congress for decades.

shinty on February 24, 2012 at 9:12 AM

This is such a silly argument or “concern”. He is one vote in Congress. It takes many votes to pass legislation, but only one person to veto legislation. Don’t fault him over the actions of the rest of the Congress.

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 9:39 AM

…they might realize that Ron Paul is actually talking sense…

Archivarix on February 24, 2012 at 8:47 AM

That’s one thing that makes me wary of Paul… He’s all talk, no achievement. He’s been ineffective in congress for decades.

Paul has been good at trashing Romney’s more conservative competition. But that’s always been Paul’s modus operandi, at least when the battle mattered. He dumps on the more conservative side.

Paul is like libertarians. They decry conservatives as ineffective. The irony is that both Paul and libertarians themselves are utterly ineffective at achieving their professed aims.

shinty on February 24, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Hi Shinty. As a Paul supporter I agree with your worry there, however I truly believe that he is the only one who both talks the talk and walks the walk. The problem with his lack of “success” in Congress is more an indictment of the way that Congress has operated when it comes to pushing spending bill after spending bill. He is but one vote and one voice going against the tide of Washington towards the welfare state. It’s politicians like Santorum who play the “team sport” who compromise on their beliefs that create the problem. The GOP “team” should back up what it says and play together for reducing spending. There’s a reason congress has an approval rating in the single digits so going along to get along isn’t at all a bonus.

Louisvillian on February 24, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Paul is like libertarians. They decry conservatives as ineffective. The irony is that both Paul and libertarians themselves are utterly ineffective at achieving their professed aims.

shinty on February 24, 2012 at 9:12 AM

I think this is a straw man. Libertarians don’t decry conservatives as ineffective; they decry them as hypocrites.

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Louisvillian on February 24, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 9:47 AM

If you believe (I don’t) that Paul is too ideologically pure to be effective in congress, then how do you explain his lashing out at Romney’s more conservative competition?

Why does he always dump on the more conservative when the battle matters? He’s been doing this for decades.

I think he’s simply a contrarian who finds he gets the most press by being a republican who trashes republicans.

shinty on February 24, 2012 at 10:06 AM

If you believe (I don’t) that Paul is too ideologically pure to be effective in congress, then how do you explain his lashing out at Romney’s more conservative competition?

shinty on February 24, 2012 at 10:06 AM

How do you explain why a candidate goes after another?? Are you serious???

Dante on February 24, 2012 at 10:40 AM

That’s one thing that makes me wary of Paul… He’s all talk, no achievement. He’s been ineffective in congress for decades.

shinty on February 24, 2012 at 9:12 AM

See, I would be wary of anyone who spent two decades in Congress playing footsie with all the other big spenders. Achievement in Congress is usually a sign you are spending too much damn money.

Like Senator ClosetCase.

JohnGalt23 on February 24, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Why does he always dump on the more conservative when the battle matters? He’s been doing this for decades.

I think he’s simply a contrarian who finds he gets the most press by being a republican who trashes republicans.

shinty on February 24, 2012 at 10:06 AM

To say he hasn’t attacked Romney isn’t true though. Looking back on the 6 most recent ads put out by Ron Paul, Santorum is referenced attacked in three of them, Gingrich in three of them and Romney in three of them. When it comes to the debates the structure aids in the slant towards Ron Paul attacking Santorum in that Santorum regularly attacks Ron Paul and so Paul is given the time to respond. Romney gains nothing from attacking Paul so he focuses on whoever is polling second at the time.
There’s also some strategy involved. Both Gingrich and Santorum came out of nowhere. Both were polling consistently sub 5% prior to Iowa so one can conclude that they went into the primary season with a very small base of support. Romney on the other hand has polled consistently in the 20% and up range and so his base obviously is stronger and more dedicated. It would seem that the voters most likely to switch their allegiances would be those supporting Gingrich and Santorum and so revealing the hypocrisy of these candidates is a more ample use of Paul’s time and resources. Having said that I do think Paul should start attacking Romney more. It’s obvious that it’s being used by the media as a way to try and delegitimize his campaign by making him look like a Romney surrogate. His campaign’s next ad should hit Romney and hard to quell these fairly baseless rumors. I will say this, to think that Gingrich or Santorum are that much more noticeably conservative than Romney is a bit of a stretch. The only thing Santorum really has on Romney are strengths in social conservatism, but his fiscal positions do so much to destroy the visage of Santorum being a conservative that he becomes an easy target for someone who is decrying the hypocrisy of Washington. Santorum is practically the poster child for Ron Paul’s claims for why Washington is broken.

Louisvillian on February 24, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Wow. This seems to be a very popular story for the HotAir folk.

cavalier973 on February 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Dr Paul is not ideologically pure, who knew? Sellout, must suck to be a Paul supporter.

Bmore on February 25, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5