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.

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.

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???

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.

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.

…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.

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.

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.

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.

…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.

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.

(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.

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.

You like to think so, at any rate.

Obviously you failed to listen/register what Paul stated when the previous debate moderator asked each candidate how their personal religious views would influence their official policy from the Oval Office.

Ron Paul stated that his spiritual convictions determine how he treats people with respect on a daily basis. But so far as governance goes, that he works from the basis of Constitutional Governance.

Through the flood of demagoguery inundating Ron Paul, particularly during a debate when Santorum blurted out calling him a liar, you might notice that Paul maintains his integrity while enunciating his point.

As regarding the points referencing Santorum’s “fake” conservatism, do take note of the record.

As regarding “conservatism”, you’ve failed to consider the distinctions between traditional American conservatism that once found representation for limited government from within the Republican Party, contrasted from corporatist neoconservatism which has everything to do with dissolving Constitutional Governance by imposing autocratic super-bureaucracies that preempt the Constitution via unconstitutional policies and mandates.

adding Rand Paul to the ticket would fire conservatives up

New campaign slogan…”Get Randy with Mitt”. Hmmm… just might work!

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

By multiple numerous posters, at multiple numerous TIMES over the last several months, it has been said that Ron Paul would be our candidate of choice, IF . . . he could adopt a REAL foreign policy instead of what he is endorsing in the way of a foreign policy, NOW.

Spoken as an authoritarian dhimmi in self defense.

If you respect our founding fathers, you’d want to learn better of Liberty, what General Washington wrote, led and fought to create as “Our Great Cause.”

Pakistan is a state sponsor or terrorism that created the Taliban in Afghanistan which aided and abetted Bin Laden on 9/11. After we invaded Afghanistan, which was Pakistan’s client/proxy state, Bin Laden moved to Pakistan and was provided safe harbor there, most likely with government assistance.

After 9/11 the top priority should have been to prevent/reduce the possibility of nuclear terrorism and nuclear blackmail. Now that Pakistan has a hundred nukes or so, if they attack America how are we going to retaliate without risking a nuclear war? If we attack Iran and Pakistan get’s involved what are we going to do?

The world is extremely unstable right now. It’s at times like these when world wars start. Iran is a client state of Russian and China, people had better take this sort of decision a lot more seriously than Rush Limbaugh who lost his credibility in Iraq.

FloatingRock on February 24, 2012 at 2:35 AM

I appreciate the response, but I don’t see how this addresses my post at all. You say you wanted to attack Iran and Pakistan after 9/11. You say that Iraq didn’t attack us and it was foolish to invade. This is inconsistent: Iran and Pakistan did not attack us on 9/11; invading and waging war on two countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 would have been equally foolish (and would still be foolish today). I don’t care if one or the other is a state sponsor of terrorism or who is a client of Russia/China.Tthat isn’t the point.

In debates, Romney was sneering whenever Paul was allowed to speak.

Romney is Keynesian, and crony Federal Reserve capitalist to boot.

That Mitt can mimic is no surprise to any with perception. So the Romney team gathers how best to imitate (as if assimilating), a la “Promise them anything; just get their votes!” from their horse’s mouth. (Newt actually assimilates what he logically processes as he considers to be best ideas, willingly dialoguing in the process, which threatens lamebrains who must have data spoon fed as if “facts” from the onset.)

That Romney utilized Paul’s legitimate attacks against Santorum hardly makes Paul Romney’s “mate” or visa versa.

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.

That Romney’s team has this week been propagandizing their message linking Romney with Paul is merely another of Romney’s outreach efforts to gain more votes by spinning, broadcasting and selling whole cloth.

Anyone who believes that corporatist Mandate Romney aligns with smaller governance and greater Liberty for our nation of citizens is a sucker, begging for more federal abuses of power against humanity.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Meritocracy that insulates the elite denies upward mobility, selfish interests maintaining glass ceilings and all.

Santorum can sit down with Glenn Beck and they can have a good cry together about how those mean meanies, Paul and Romney, are not adoring him. Santorum is Twelve Step Friendly, so Glenn can’t help but love him.
jan3 on February 24, 2012 at 8:03 AM

.
I watched that interview, last night. In fact, I recorded it (unfortunately the recording didn’t come out right, so I’ll try again today).

I didn’t see any crying or even whining.
Glenn asked the questions that SHOULD have been asked at every debate; it made Rick hesitate with some answers. Nothing milquetoast about it.

What do you remember of the interview?

Ronulans can only be trusted to cause chaos if they don’t get what they want. Which, by definition, is anarchy. So they’re essentially upper crust anarchists.

platypus on February 24, 2012 at 12:33 AM

No, anarchy means without archon. That is, without king, chief, ruler, etc. It does not mean chaos.