Scarborough: This Romney-Paul alliance is pretty weird, isn’t it?

posted at 1:55 pm on February 23, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Last night after the debate, Rick Santorum implied that Ron Paul and Mitt Romney had formed an alliance of some sort intended to take out the biggest threat to Romney’s nomination.  He’s convinced at least one person today.  Joe Scarborough called the alliance “obvious” on Morning Joe today, as well as “bizarre”:

“The thing that went unspoken but everybody knows, and that is that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul have formed an alliance,” Scarborough said. “It is such an obvious alliance that Mitt Romney would do well to just come out and admit it. I don’t know what he’s promised Ron Paul. I don’t know if Ron Paul is hoping that his son gets in the administration. But let’s just be really honest here — for all people for Ron Paul to form an alliance with in the Republican Party, to pick out Mitt Romney is really bizarre.”

Scarborough posed that question to Daily Beast columnist Mark McKinnon, who served as an adviser to former President George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain in their bids for the White House, noting that this possible alliance wasn’t talked about much in the media.

“What’s the deal here?” Scarborough asked McKinnon. “You know there’s either a spoken or unspoken deal between Mitt Romney. This is the sort of thing nobody in the media likes to talk about but everybody in the game knows is going on. I mean, is Ron Paul hoping that his son gets a job in the cabinet? Is he hoping his son is going to be the VP nominee? What’s going on here, because there’s a deal between these guys.”

What possible interest could the die-hard libertarian have in the author of RomneyCare?  Over to you, John Hayward:

A Romney-Paul ticket seems a bit unlikely, although it becomes more plausible if you substitute a different Paul.  There has been speculation that Ron Paul’s son, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, might be on the vice presidential short list.   Rand Paul recently said “it would be an honor to be considered.”  Rand would presumably be able to bring a good deal of Ron’s support to the Romney ticket, and the 49-year-old Senator might be more content with spending four or eight years on the vice-presidential launch pad than his 76-year-old father.

I’d think that Rand’s chances of ending up on the bottom of a Romney ticket would be roughly equal to that of his father.  The younger Paul just began his Senate term — the first public office he has held — a year ago.  In comparison, Marco Rubio is a grizzled veteran.  Paul would certainly deliver Kentucky, which is in absolutely no danger of going to Obama in November anyway. He’d keep the Ronulans in the fold, but how would Romney sell the younger Paul as prepared to lead the country in case the unthinkable happens to a President Romney?  Romney needs a conservative as a running mate if he wins the nomination, but there are plenty of other choices with more experience, both in politics and in executive experience than Rand Paul.

So why is Paul attacking Santorum instead of Romney?  Paul and Romney have a long-standing friendship, but don’t forget that Santorum went after Paul on foreign policy in numerous debates.  I’d call this more of a personal choice on Paul’s part rather than a conspiracy, in the absence of better evidence.  To the extent that there is any strategy in this calculation, it’s probably that Paul thinks Romney will win the nomination and he wants to make it easy for Rand to engage with the GOP during and after the election by refraining from attacks on the next party leader.


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 2 3

Ike inserted ourseleves into Korea. Paul’s fp is NOTHING like Eisenhower’s.

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 5:05 PM

As for this, you might recall that Ike ended the Korean war… Unless you have some new information to share.

ebrawer on February 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM

The alliance has become really obvious lately. It’s not just the two of them on stage together in a debate tag-teaming Santorum. It’s also that Paul keeps running attack ads against Romney’s rivals, but never against Romney himself. In fact, it looks like Paul is just another Romney surrogate while preening as the “only Constitutional Conservative.”

The more I see of Paul, the less impressed I am with his integrity.

tom on February 23, 2012 at 2:05 PM

This.

Stoic Patriot on February 23, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Just to get in straight for all the BoxHeads that I represent;
Libertarians
Since Paul’s not competing with Romney then Mitt is OK as the nominee. You would be happy if Mitt were the nominee, right?

And the Mitt supporters, would you be happy with Paul as the nominee?

strangest alliance in evah

BoxHead1 on February 23, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Exactly! What I was trying to do is blame america!

ebrawer on February 23, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Well, Paul sure seems intent on blaming America. After all, it’s our fault that Al Queda hit us on 9/11. And that crack about Japan hitting Pearl Harbor after the oil embargo — that was brought about because Japan had designs on turning a large part of Southeast Asia into its own empire. Sure seems that the Ronulans see the US as a big part of the problem.

Bitter Clinger on February 23, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Uh, they had hopes of capturing bin Laden, but he pulled a gun on the Seals. They had to take him out. As for “assaulting” Pakinstan’s soverign soil, they were supposed to be our ally, but here’s bin laden hiding in their country, not in some cave, but right under their military’s noses. Informing them that we were coming to get bin Laden would have likely led to bin Laden getting tipped off that we were on the way.

On Iran, they are the one who can’t play nice with their neighbors, most especially Israel. They cannot be trusted to have nukes. We are not threatening their existence the way they have threatened Israel’s. And, they would love to threaten ours if they could obtain the capability.

Bitter Clinger on February 23, 2012 at 5:11 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2021260/Osama-Bin-Laden-Full-details-raid-catch-Al-Qaeda-leader-know-SEALs-identity.html

There are other numerous articles in which it is shown that the intent ahead of time was to kill Osama Bin Laden and that he was unarmed. We cooperated with Pakistan to capture Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was also in Pakistan at the time of his capture. It would appear that the only thing limiting our options when it came to the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden was their directives from the President.

Iran gains the destruction of their country as they know it if they attack Israel or the United States. Since 1953 we have been meddling in their affairs. The justification for hatred of our presence globally is there and ratcheting up the war rhetoric does nothing to dampen this. Now a policy of non-intervention and loosening of economic sanctions might do something to ease tensions with Iran. wonder if there is a presidential candidate who champions this…

Louisvillian on February 23, 2012 at 5:33 PM

LOL. No. Eisenhower ordered the CIA to overthrow Iran’s leader. Ike inserted ourseleves into Korea. Paul’s fp is NOTHING like Eisenhower’s.

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 5:05 PM

That’s very interesting. Since the Korean War began in 1950 — when Truman was still President.

Bitter Clinger on February 23, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Mitt’s right hand man Paul is a full blown political charlatan. Mitt will take care of his Rand, so it’s all good. Enough of this fraud!

kingsmill on February 23, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Now a policy of non-intervention and loosening of economic sanctions might do something to ease tensions with Iran. wonder if there is a presidential candidate with a snowball’s chance in hell who champions this…

Louisvillian on February 23, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Mild ftfy.

MelonCollie on February 23, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Louisvillian on February 23, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Ahhh…Paultards.

lol

catmman on February 23, 2012 at 5:36 PM

I posted five links – each word is a separate link. I recommend you view them all; they range from last year to earlier this month.

And if you looked at the article in the Atlantic, you should have noticed what the moneybomb was about: “Paul launched a fundraising ‘money bomb’ on Sunday, urging supporters to donate a total of $2 million with a call to arms against ‘Romneycare.’”

Inkblots on February 23, 2012 at 5:00 PM

I did read the article in Atlantic. But didn’t see any ad, just that he was doing a moneybomb “for” an ad.
I’ll look again for the other ads.

bluefox on February 23, 2012 at 5:37 PM

As for this, you might recall that Ike ended the Korean war… Unless you have some new information to share.

ebrawer on February 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM

re: the comical idea that Paul and Eisenhower have the same foreign policy…

Ike threatened to use nukes if China didn’t agree to the Korean treaty.

Ike threatened nuclear force again to keep China out of Taiwan.

Ike put the Shah in power in Iran.

The ‘Eisenhower Doctrine’ threatened force to support friendly but unstable Middle Eastern powers… and intervened in other ways in the ME as well.

Ike escalated the Cold War.

Ike planned the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Anyway, I’ll enjoy watching the Paul supporters as they further twist logic to support Paul’s lib buddy Romney…

shinty on February 23, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Iran gains the destruction of their country as they know it if they attack Israel or the United States. Since 1953 we have been meddling in their affairs. The justification for hatred of our presence globally is there and ratcheting up the war rhetoric does nothing to dampen this. Now a policy of non-intervention and loosening of economic sanctions might do something to ease tensions with Iran. wonder if there is a presidential candidate who champions this…

Louisvillian on February 23, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Iran uses Hamas and Hezbollah to meddle in Israel’s security on a regular basis. They are a despicable regime. Easing sanction signals that we are weak. They are not going to stop their hopes of wiping out Israel, one way or another. And you Paulites never put 1953 into context. It was the Cold War. The Soviets had every hope of pulling Iran into its sphere of influence as well. Of course, I’m sure you think the Cold War was something we shouldn’t have engaged in either.

Bitter Clinger on February 23, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Louisvillian on February 23, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Ahhh…Paultards.

lol

catmman on February 23, 2012 at 5:36 PM

I mean you no harm. Sorry if my logical argumentation offended.

Louisvillian on February 23, 2012 at 5:40 PM

And you Paulites never put 1953 into context. It was the Cold War. The Soviets had every hope of pulling Iran into its sphere of influence as well.

Bitter Clinger on February 23, 2012 at 5:39 PM

BWAHAHAHA! Yeah, sure, just like they were able to bring Afcrapistan into their sphere of power…

MelonCollie on February 23, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Anyway, I’ll enjoy watching the Paul supporters as they further twist logic to support Paul’s lib buddy Romney…

shinty on February 23, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Exactly. I saw a lot of water skies and shark tanks at the beach this morning.

BoxHead1 on February 23, 2012 at 5:42 PM

It’s really interesting to see the Restore Our Future Super Pac expenditures.

Fallon on February 23, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Yeah, I’m sure they really meant that they love Israel and wish them all the best.

They have brought about the sanctions and “war mongering rhetoric” through their own “war mongering rhetoric”. They don’t want respect, they want to be feared.

Bitter Clinger on February 23, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Come on, man. They may wish for Israel to collapse, but wipe them off the map is not a saying that exists in their language. No one is suggesting they want to be best friends. And we are the ones responsible for the rhetoric and have brought it on ourselves beginning with the coup I mentioned above.

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Romney needs a conservative as a running mate if he wins the nomination

Why? How does the logic of this comport with the logic that only a RINO is electable and further that Palin is what cost the last RINO what little chance he had in the 2008 election? Why wouldn’t Romney pick another RINO to keep all the ‘only RINOs can win’ people happy? Wouldn’t bringing Rand Paul on board lead to an avalanche-level meme of Rand Paul is crazy/stupid/corrupt from the MSM/Buzzfeed/Allahpundit/Peggy Noonan/et al crowd? If you had said Romney needs to pick a conservative running mate to win the nomination I could see it, but his way, well, I don’t get it, sorry.

Knott Buyinit on February 23, 2012 at 5:46 PM

I mean you no harm. Sorry if my logical argumentation offended.

Louisvillian on February 23, 2012 at 5:40 PM

On the latter, no offense taken.

You continue to offer up laughs bordering on guffaws however if you insist that anything Paultard is logical.

lols continue…

catmman on February 23, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Iran gains the destruction of their country as they know it if they attack Israel or the United States. Since 1953 we have been meddling in their affairs. The justification for hatred of our presence globally is there and ratcheting up the war rhetoric does nothing to dampen this. Now a policy of non-intervention and loosening of economic sanctions might do something to ease tensions with Iran. wonder if there is a presidential candidate who champions this…

Louisvillian on February 23, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Iran uses Hamas and Hezbollah to meddle in Israel’s security on a regular basis. They are a despicable regime. Easing sanction signals that we are weak. They are not going to stop their hopes of wiping out Israel, one way or another. And you Paulites never put 1953 into context. It was the Cold War. The Soviets had every hope of pulling Iran into its sphere of influence as well. Of course, I’m sure you think the Cold War was something we shouldn’t have engaged in either.

Bitter Clinger on February 23, 2012 at 5:39 PM

And that’s for Israel to deal with, as they do. Israel’s leadership has stated that they do not want nor need our help when it comes to this. Netanyahu is quoted as saying “We defend ourselves.” Saying that easing sanctions only makes us look weak works up until the country begins to benefit from the relationship between us. 50 years of economic sanctions against Cuba has done nothing to usher an end to the Castro regime, if anything it perpetuated it. The Cold War was an inevitability of the turmoil following WW2. What was not inevitable was our involvement in Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. I realize the potential Cold War context involved in what took place in Iran in 1953, but that doesnt change the fact that it creates a justification for American disdain in Iran. Even if the Cold War justification for Operation Ajax is true, what actually took place was a preemptive coup on the democratically elected leader of a sovereign nation. What we never seem to factor into these discussions of preemptive action is the blowback caused by entering into an unjust military action. This is why Ron Paul’s biggest foreign policy gripe is that we don’t declare wars justly.

Louisvillian on February 23, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Joana on February 23, 2012 at 2:41 PM

I understand the federalism argument, but Romney can’t just say “we tried it but it didn’t work like we hoped”. And Paul should be willing to criticize that and much as he’s willing to criticize the others.

Bitter Clinger on February 23, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Why? I’ve already explained that to him it’s obviously more serious an unconstitutional entitlement program at the federal level than a constitutional state level program with which he disagrees politically – and he has criticized it, but it’s clearly small potatoes compared to, say, the Medicare bribe.

Apparently you can say you understand the federalism argument but you disagree with it.

joana on February 23, 2012 at 6:00 PM

I mean you no harm. Sorry if my logical argumentation offended.

Louisvillian on February 23, 2012 at 5:40 PM

On the latter, no offense taken.

You continue to offer up laughs bordering on guffaws however if you insist that anything Paultard is logical.

lols continue…

catmman on February 23, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Glad to be of service. I’ll continue to be Paultarded and you can continue to operate under the assumption that anyone offering up a different perspective than your own is wrong.

Louisvillian on February 23, 2012 at 6:03 PM

If you think Paul (or Romney) is defending Obamacare, you’re even crazier than you usually sound.

joana on February 23, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Romney will find it hard to make a case that the federal plan is bad when he did an almost identical plan at the state level.

tom on February 23, 2012 at 2:57 PM

You clearly are no federalist if you believe that argument can’t be made or is hard to make – and this is not an endorsement of Romneycare.

There are lots of political solutions that may make sense at a state level and that are awful – or even unconstitutional – at a federal level.

What’s so hard to understand about this? This is at the core of the states rights platform.

joana on February 23, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Well, Paul sure seems intent on blaming America. After all, it’s our fault that Al Queda hit us on 9/11. And that crack about Japan hitting Pearl Harbor after the oil embargo — that was brought about because Japan had designs on turning a large part of Southeast Asia into its own empire. Sure seems that the Ronulans see the US as a big part of the problem.

Bitter Clinger on February 23, 2012 at 5:32 PM

I agree that Paul shouldn’t try to find excuses for 9/11. As for the embargo, yes, it was to get Japan to withdraw from China. But the point is that, we shouldn’t kid ourselves into thinking Pearl Harbour came out of nowhere – the policy of confrontation with Japan was obviously leading to war.

Sometimes war is inevitable, but the number of pointless wars has been high of late. If you must have war, just achieve the strategic objective and get out. Nation building is a thankless sacrifice. GWB knew this during his 2000 election campaign.

ebrawer on February 23, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Mitt Romney is not going to put Ron Paul or Rand Paul one heartbeat from the presidency.

Ron Paul understands that neither Santorum nor Gingrich can win the presidency — nor does he like the social conservatism of Santorum.

Further, Ron Paul understands that his people will bolt the party before they would support Santorum — whereas they will remain in camp with Romney.

Should be mentioned that Carol Paul and Ann Romney are close personal friends.

My own view is that Ron Paul wants a fun assignment from President Romney – like chairing a commission to audit the Fed. Ron Paul would be like a kid in a candy store.

The Santorum people evidently have no problem with their man coordinating w Newt – such as ongoing in Michigan. It’s only a problem for Paul and Romney to forge an alliance. Hypocrisy.

matthew8787 on February 23, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Romney needs a conservative as a running mate if he wins the nomination

Why? How does the logic of this comport with the logic that only a RINO is electable and further that Palin is what cost the last RINO what little chance he had in the 2008 election? Why wouldn’t Romney pick another RINO to keep all the ‘only RINOs can win’ people happy? Wouldn’t bringing Rand Paul on board lead to an avalanche-level meme of Rand Paul is crazy/stupid/corrupt from the MSM/Buzzfeed/Allahpundit/Peggy Noonan/et al crowd? If you had said Romney needs to pick a conservative running mate to win the nomination I could see it, but his way, well, I don’t get it, sorry.

Knott Buyinit on February 23, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Here’s a better idea. Why not just nominate the more conservative out of the three remaining candidates? After all, we like to say a day-old ham sandwich could beat Obama, especially here on HotGas. Let’s prove that theory for once.

Rand Paul or Marco Rubio hopefully will think twice about getting sacrificed on the Moderate GOP Alter of VP Losers. I do not want either of them to get Palined. And they will if they accept a Mitt offer.

Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Personally speaking, I reject the notion that a Governor is ideal for the presidency. The idea that managing a state is the same as managing the country is a fallacy that has aided and created the national welfare state. From the constitutional perspective I would find that military personnel would be most suited for what the job truly entails.

Louisvillian on February 23, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Joana is correct. Obama will not get a pass on Obamacare just because Romney had a state level health care program.

People hate Obamacare, they don’t have a clue about Romneycare. And Obama cannot raise the issue of Romneycare without highlighting a losing issue for him: Obamacare.

It’s a lose-lose for Obama. The GOP is sacrificing very little on this with Romney at the top of the ticket.

Romneycare is a problem for Romney in capturing the nomination; it is not a problem in the general.

And the Supreme Court just might diminish or altogether remove Obamacare as an issue in the fall.

matthew8787 on February 23, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Fine as to military experience. But a governor or vice president has a lot more executive experience than a senator.

The GOP should NEVER nominate a senator — they are losers in the general (Goldwater, Dole, McCain) — the reason being that they carry the burden of a congressional voting record that is picked apart by the Dems and the MSM. We saw this burden on display with Santorum last night — it’s fatal.

The GOP only wins the presidency when they nominate a governor (Reagan, Bush 43), a vp (Nixon, Bush 41), or military hero (Eisenhower).

Want 4 more years of Obama? Nominate Santorum.

The last GOP president elected from the Senate: Warren Harding in 1920, nearly 100 years ago.

matthew8787 on February 23, 2012 at 6:17 PM

The Romney-Paul alliance is a reason not to support Romney. Paul represents, in foreign policy, isolationism and a lack of understanding of radical Islam. To the extent that Romney is influenced by Paul’s foreign policy views, that is unacceptable to us national security conservatives.

Phil Byler on February 23, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Glad to be of service. I’ll continue to be Paultarded and you can continue to operate under the assumption that anyone offering up a different perspective than your own is wrong.

Louisvillian on February 23, 2012 at 6:03 PM

The only ones assuming anything are you Paultards, as usual. I do like the projection in the last part of your comment.

A Paultard accusing anyone else who is “offering up a different perspective than your own is wrong” is rich indeed.

Your killing me! loling…

catmman on February 23, 2012 at 6:18 PM

People hate Obamacare, they don’t have a clue about Romneycare. And Obama cannot raise the issue of Romneycare without highlighting a losing issue for him: Obamacare.

matthew8787 on February 23, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Wait until the New York Times (and its’ sister paper, the Boston Globe) publishes daily blistering exposes on Romneycare, how its’ bankrupting the state, and the politics used to get that thing passed.

A MENSA member doesn’t have to see that coming, you know. Remember what the Chicago Tribune (vis-a-vis their sister paper, the LA Times) torpedoed Obama’s opponent in the 2004 senate race, Jack Ryan, handing Obama the senate seat on a silver platter.

Obama doesn’t need to raise the issue. The MSM will do it for him. And the public will STILL lap it up as the unvarnished truth.

Watch in August as Mitt become the Burning Man.

Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Louisvillian on February 23, 2012 at 6:13 PM

If the implication you’re making is that Herr Doktors’ few years as a flight surgeon over four decades ago in some way qualifies him more to run the country than anyone who was a state governor, that’s retarded.

Stop it! You’re killing me!

catmman on February 23, 2012 at 6:24 PM

So, Herr Doktor’s vaunted ‘principles’ extend to being Mitt Romney’s attack dog?

heh.

catmman on February 23, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Myron, nobody reads the New York Times. Hell, most Americans don’t read at all.

Yes, every aspect of Romney’s record will be dissected, but in the final analysis the only tactic that Obama/MSM have is to talk about anything but Obama’s record. To the extent that Mitt has no skeletons in his closet and is appealling to moderates, independents, and disaffected Dems, the tactic won’t work.

The important part of the equation is to keep the election a referendum on Obama. Romney delivers this; Santrorum and Gingrich do not, as they both carry considerable baggage, including a congressional voting record that Axelrod would have a field day with.

matthew8787 on February 23, 2012 at 6:36 PM

SORRY TO DISAPPOINT RON PAULBOTS…..

Romney ain’t pickin’ Rand or the Kook from Tejas for VP. It’s Rubio……………..DUH.

ROMNEY / RUBIO
The establishment has spoken, let it be done.

PappyD61 on February 23, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Louisvillian on February 23, 2012 at 6:13 PM

If the implication you’re making is that Herr Doktors’ few years as a flight surgeon over four decades ago in some way qualifies him more to run the country than anyone who was a state governor, that’s retarded.

Stop it! You’re killing me!

catmman on February 23, 2012 at 6:24 PM

That wasn’t the intent at all. I was referring more to president’s like Washington, Jackson, and Ike, Generals more specifically. As such I don’t feel that any of the candidates have the optimal experience in my book. Ron Paul wins me over through his fiscal policies. His foreign policy is an implied consequence of sound fiscal policies and makes it equally as sound in my eye. I’ll sit here and back up my point of view with fact based arguments and you can attack them with hate spewing rhetoric. I’m okay with this arrangement.

Louisvillian on February 23, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Pappy, unlikely to be Rubio, IMHO including today’s disclosure. I think it will be Governor Martinez, McDonnell or Sandoval.

McDonnell really wants it. He will deliver a critical state and shore up the ticket’s TP cred.

matthew8787 on February 23, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Morning Joe is weird!

MCGIRV on February 23, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Myron, nobody reads the New York Times. Hell, most Americans don’t read at all.

matthew8787 on February 23, 2012 at 6:36 PM

You just don’t get the Lame-Stream Media, do you. Idiot.

What the New York Times or Washington Post reports is almost always parroted by ABC, CBS, NBC-MSNBC, and CNN (and to a lesser degree, Fox).

Look into the Journolist fiasco, started by the WaPo’s Ezra Klein (who also double-dips at MSNBC). The MSM will stop at nothing to advance an agenda. Even in spite of declining influence, they still hold it, and are ready at will to use it to manipulate the masses.

If you refuse to accept that fact and do not prepare for a coming onslaught, then you deserve to lose.

Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 6:46 PM

No one likes the bigot Rick Santorum.

bluegill on February 23, 2012 at 6:46 PM

No one likes the bigot Rick Santorum.

bluegill on February 23, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Says the Democrat Sock-Puppet.

Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Myron, I clearly said that the MSM will dissect every part of the record of the pending GOP nominee. Yes, preparation is essential. I agree with you. Calm down. I am not an idiot, there is no need for the name calling. Unseemly.

matthew8787 on February 23, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Morning Joe is weird!

MCGIRV on February 23, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Well, yeah. Joe is the lone conservative left on an all-liberal news network (not counting Republican commentator Michael Steele).

If you watch Morning Joe, you’ve basically found Waldo.

Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Myron, I clearly said that the MSM will dissect every part of the record of the pending GOP nominee. Yes, preparation is essential. I agree with you. Calm down. I am not an idiot, there is no need for the name calling. Unseemly.

matthew8787 on February 23, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Mitt’s had a bad history of fumbling whenever the pressure is turned on him. And when he DOES prepare, he makes Pinocchio look life-like. He’s a ticking time-bomb.

If Mitt is nominated, Obama automatically gets another four years.

Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Does anyone know if Ron Paul ran ads against all of the R Candidates?

I know about the Newt ads and the Santorum ads, but was unaware of the others. Perry, Bachmann, Cain and others.

bluefox on February 23, 2012 at 7:03 PM

I’ll go $5 to a sackful of doughnut holes that there is no deal between Paul and Romney. Romney doesn’t have to offer one.

I have known the defining elements of the Paul (rEVOlution” since 1979. They always have favored the fartherest left of whatever and whomever was in the news.

(Note: Mitt is not that far left, but he is the best they have at this moment so they favor him as their political DNA code permits nothing else.)

Warsaw Pact or NATO? They favored the Warsaw Pact. Ayatollah or Shah? Ayatollah. Contra or Sandanista? Sandanista. Netanyahu or towelhead? Towelhead. Gingrich or Pelosi? Pelosi. Schumer or LaPierre? Schumer. On and on it goes.

For over thirty years whoever I judged to be on my side has been attacked either directly or indirectly. All those I judged to be opposed to me and what I stand for has been supported. And for free at that. If they ever got 30 pieces of silver they would give 29 of them back.

I am forced to conclude that their nominal support of free markets and free people is a facade. The latest that has come to my attention is Paul himself claiming veteran/military support while his acoylytes on the rockwell and raimondo threads call military dependents “gun molls for murderers”.

Thus Romney owes them nothing and should pay less.

Oilpatcher on February 23, 2012 at 7:21 PM

These are his ads for the last 2 months (going from most recent to least recent):

Fake-Anti Santorum
Three of a Kind-Against all three opponents
Betrayel-Some on Gingrich, mostly anti-Santorum
Believe-Pro Ron Paul
The Washington Machine-Anti Romney and Gingrich
The One you can Trust-Pro Ron Paul, small attacks on Gingrich and Romney

Throughout all of these adds I only have seen Bachmann pictured once. It is possible that there are some other ads out there but these are the ones that show up on the Ron Paul campaign website. I think its important to note how often Romney is protrayed negatively in these ads. While he hasn’t been the focus yet, he has been called out by the campaign numerous times.

Louisvillian on February 23, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Does anyone know if Ron Paul ran ads against all of the R Candidates?

I know about the Newt ads and the Santorum ads, but was unaware of the others. Perry, Bachmann, Cain and others.

bluefox on February 23, 2012 at 7:03 PM

My last comment was directed at you. Hope that answers your question some. I have also heard that there was at least one anti Perry ad but I have not seen it anywhere.

Louisvillian on February 23, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Here’s a better idea. Why not just nominate the more conservative out of the three remaining candidates?

Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 6:12 PM

There are four candidates remaining, three of which are not conservative,

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 7:33 PM

There are four candidates remaining, three of which are not conservative,

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 7:33 PM

As a Paul fan(right?) please elaborate on how Mitt Romney is not conservative. What do you think of RomneyCare?

BoxHead1 on February 23, 2012 at 7:38 PM

bluefox on February 23, 2012 at 7:03 PM
My last comment was directed at you. Hope that answers your question some. I have also heard that there was at least one anti Perry ad but I have not seen it anywhere.

Louisvillian on February 23, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Thank you. I did a little searching and came up with this one. Don’t know if it is included in your links or not, since I just saw your reply.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-ron-paul-ad-takes-aim-at-romney-perry-bachmann/ Aug. 16, 2011

bluefox on February 23, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Just a note. Mark Levin has been on this Romney/Paul alliance since 6PM.
He’s playing clips and explaining what has been going on. Not promoting anyone, but trying to get info out so people know what is going on behind the scenes and why. I’ve heard some of his program but plan on listening to the replay. He’s not even been taking phone calls since he thinks this info is important.

bluefox on February 23, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Just a note. Mark Levin has been on this Romney/Paul alliance since 6PM.
He’s playing clips and explaining what has been going on. Not promoting anyone, but trying to get info out so people know what is going on behind the scenes and why. I’ve heard some of his program but plan on listening to the replay. He’s not even been taking phone calls since he thinks this info is important.

bluefox on February 23, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Who in their right mind would willingly listen to Mark Levin?

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 7:54 PM

There are four candidates remaining, three one of which are is not conservative, one that’s deeply libertarian and two that are far more conservative than the non-conservative.

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 7:33 PM

FIFY.

Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Who in their right mind would willingly listen to Mark Levin?

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 7:54 PM

More people than those who watch MSNBC or CNN prime-time.

Myron Falwell on February 23, 2012 at 8:06 PM

bluefox on February 23, 2012 at 7:50 PM
Who in their right mind would willingly listen to Mark Levin?

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Those that are in their right mind. Those that think they know it all or have closed minds wouldn’t. That’s my opinion.

Mark spent 2 hours, no phone calls. Playing clips from Romney & Ron Paul over several years. When you hear in their own words what they have said or believe, then unless you want to deny that, it’s informative. It’s not spin, not someone’s opinion.

Truth is offensive to many people, but for those that search for it, it is not.

bluefox on February 23, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Are there any honest Paul supporters out there?

Or are they all Obama-like drones who worship everything Paul says and does?

I have yet to see one Paul supporter criticize him for the racist newsletters or this Mittens alliance!

Pathetic!

LevinFan on February 23, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Those that are in their right mind. Those that think they know it all or have closed minds wouldn’t. That’s my opinion.

Mark spent 2 hours, no phone calls. Playing clips from Romney & Ron Paul over several years. When you hear in their own words what they have said or believe, then unless you want to deny that, it’s informative. It’s not spin, not someone’s opinion.

Truth is offensive to many people, but for those that search for it, it is not.

bluefox on February 23, 2012 at 8:26 PM

RuPaul called both Lincoln and Reagan disasters!

Everyone sucks but RuPaul!

RuPaul, the clown who’s been in Congress for 30 years but hasn’t had one noteworthy peace of leglislation. All he can do is Blame America First and smear real conservatives.

RuPaul is a national disgrace!

LevinFan on February 23, 2012 at 8:42 PM

RuPaul called both Lincoln and Reagan disasters!

Everyone sucks but RuPaul!

RuPaul, the clown who’s been in Congress for 30 years but hasn’t had one noteworthy peace of leglislation. All he can do is Blame America First and smear real conservatives.

RuPaul is a national disgrace!

LevinFan on February 23, 2012 at 8:42 PM

I don’t know what’s up with the juvenile, grade-school fascination to make fun of people’s names. It’s not clever, and it doesn’t exactly paint the user as sane or someone to be taken seriously. Not to single you out, but it’s pretty common practice, and I don’t understand it. I guess it’s a way to attack the person when unable to attack the argument.

Regardless, Lincoln was one of the worst presidents our republic has ever had. I know we’ve all been taught to idolize the man and we’ve been bombarded with Lincoln propaganda throughout our lives, so it’s a little jolting to hear anyone criticize him, and I understand that.

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 9:21 PM

bluefox on February 23, 2012 at 8:26 PM

I didn’t deny anything. I’m just questioning why anyone in their right mind would willingly listen to Mark Levin.

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 9:22 PM

bluefox on February 23, 2012 at 8:26 PM
RuPaul called both Lincoln and Reagan disasters!

Everyone sucks but RuPaul!

RuPaul, the clown who’s been in Congress for 30 years but hasn’t had one noteworthy peace of leglislation. All he can do is Blame America First and smear real conservatives.

RuPaul is a national disgrace!

LevinFan on February 23, 2012 at 8:42 PM

I heard the letter read that R Paul sent to President Reagan in 1987 when he resigned from the Republican Party. I’m glad Mark took 2 hours of his show time to bring this info out. Ron Paul is not the nutty old uncle in the attic as he trys to portray. The tapes of him talking and his supporters screaming and shouting in the background reminded me of the OWS crowd.

Yes, no one is suitable to R Paul except himself.

That he and Romney both are against Conservatives sheds a different light on what has been going on. I plan on listening to the reply and taking notes. I would love to have a transcript of those 2 hrs.

bluefox on February 23, 2012 at 9:29 PM

LevinFan on February 23, 2012 at 8:40 PM

The newsletters were disgusting pieces of trash that should have never been written. Although, the amount of content that would be considered racist is overblown, it doesn’t take away from the fact that the racist content was there. As far as supporting Paul goes, I’d much rather support somebody who may or may not have had a large or small role in some newsletters 20 years ago than somebody who today supports racial profiling and general bigotry towards women, gays, Muslims, the list goes on…

This “Mittens alliance” is laughable. Paul’s strategy should have been obvious after NH. It was to establish himself as the only viable not-Romney, as evidenced by the statement his campaign released right after NH (calling on everybody else to dropping out). That’s why he has attacked the other not-Romney’s. Not some sinister, cloak and dagger plot to … do something. The funny part is, Paul supporters and libertarians are called the conspiritards. But, don’t let me interrupt, I do enjoy reading conspiracy theories.

gyrmnix on February 23, 2012 at 9:33 PM

As a Paul fan(right?) please elaborate on how Mitt Romney is not conservative. What do you think of RomneyCare?

BoxHead1 on February 23, 2012 at 7:38 PM

We could likely start and end with Mitt’s support of TARP. That should be enough, don’t you think?

Here’s an oldie from McCain of all people. A Tale of Two Mitts

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 9:34 PM

I heard the letter read that R Paul sent to President Reagan in 1987 when he resigned from the Republican Party. I’m glad Mark took 2 hours of his show time to bring this info out. Ron Paul is not the nutty old uncle in the attic as he trys to portray. The tapes of him talking and his supporters screaming and shouting in the background reminded me of the OWS crowd.

Yes, no one is suitable to R Paul except himself.

That he and Romney both are against Conservatives sheds a different light on what has been going on. I plan on listening to the reply and taking notes. I would love to have a transcript of those 2 hrs.

bluefox on February 23, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Bring this info out? “This info” has been out for a long time. It’s not new. Paul was disappointed that Reagan talked the talk, but didn’t walk the walk. Government and spending grew under Reagan, and he deserves criticism for it. It’s completely surprising that a neoconservative like Levin would be opposed to Paul. Who would have guessed?

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 9:38 PM

bluefox on February 23, 2012 at 8:26 PM
I didn’t deny anything. I’m just questioning why anyone in their right mind would willingly listen to Mark Levin.

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 9:22 PM

I didn’t suggest you did Dante. Your comment implied that only those that were not in their right mind would listen to Levin and do so willingly.

I try to stay informed by listening to those that don’t have a particular agenda or spin. Those that know much more than I do or reading history is very helpful to understand where we are as a Country today and how we got here.

For example, all of the problems in our Country today. Who is responsible? 535 members of Congress & a President. You and I didn’t pass any laws, did we? Did we vote on any? Even when we protested, did our Representatives represent us when they voted against our opposition?

Wisconsin has the recall. Why isn’t there a recall for Congress? No, not the 2 year/6yr/4yr, but a year. Then we could rid Congress of those that vote against us and our Country. Then they would fear us instead of doing as they please:-)

bluefox on February 23, 2012 at 9:42 PM

bluefox on February 23, 2012 at 9:29 PM
Bring this info out? “This info” has been out for a long time. It’s not new. Paul was disappointed that Reagan talked the talk, but didn’t walk the walk. Government and spending grew under Reagan, and he deserves criticism for it. It’s completely surprising that a neoconservative like Levin would be opposed to Paul. Who would have guessed?

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 9:38 PM

That may be. However, not everyone was aware of all of this due to different age groups. History is educational as long as it is factual and not rewritten. An eighteen year old today, how would he know any of this? It’s not taught in school. If you know these things either by living through it or by studying is great. But not everyone did. Learning is or should be an everyday experience, to me at least.

bluefox on February 23, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Wisconsin has the recall. Why isn’t there a recall for Congress? No, not the 2 year/6yr/4yr, but a year. Then we could rid Congress of those that vote against us and our Country. Then they would fear us instead of doing as they please:-)

bluefox on February 23, 2012 at 9:42 PM

What makes you think that people would instantly recall their Congressman when they

do

get that chance every 2 years yet incumbents win re-election by overwhelming numbers? That Wisconsin recall did not succeed in its intent (unions dumping GOP Senators so the Dems could retake the majoity). Recalls aren’t an answer.

Bitter Clinger on February 23, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Bitter Clinger on February 23, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Oops. “Do” was supposed to be in italics. Picked the wrong button.

Bitter Clinger on February 23, 2012 at 10:09 PM

That may be. However, not everyone was aware of all of this due to different age groups. History is educational as long as it is factual and not rewritten. An eighteen year old today, how would he know any of this? It’s not taught in school. If you know these things either by living through it or by studying is great. But not everyone did. Learning is or should be an everyday experience, to me at least.

bluefox on February 23, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Dude, this was hashed and rehashed in the news not two months ago. It has nothing to do with age groups.

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 10:21 PM

It’s really interesting to see the Restore Our Future Super Pac expenditures.

Fallon on February 23, 2012 at 5:44 PM

(Thank You!)

KOOLAID2 on February 23, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Mikka, Mikka, Mikka….. tons of questions and not a lot of answers. Huh Girl?

This is the most boring show on TV. At least from this clip, is this how it goes all morning?

Well, Paul’s people calls Romney’s people. They draft a document of alliance. Then Romney’s people take it back to review….

Look, there is NO alliance. Santorum has the target on HIS BACK this go round, last time it was Romney, before that, Gingrich. REALLY, it’s that simple.

mr_west on February 24, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Rush mentioned this and really to me, this is old news. IMHO it started with Maine, even tho ppl don’t believe me because it’s some sort of conspiracy theory. If it took Maddow to show me, I will leave that at that.

Ron Paul knows he can’t go after Newt on foreign policy because Newt “newtered” Paul on the debate re: Iran with the “oath to protect and defend the Constitution” (Newt used Paul’s argument of the US Constitution to essentially STFU) and that’s why the body language that Paul had the rest of the evening-for those who watched. That clip is a must. Ron Paul looked like a frustrated and bored kid in school.

His son Rand is a great pick for VP don’t get me wrong on that; just like Obama and his pen bypassing everybody in Congress, if true Mitt Romney is bypassing the GOP process and cutting deals as if this was already a brokered (or contested) convention.

This is, of course if it IS true. I asked Ed yesterday and he still does not buy it.

ProudPalinFan on February 24, 2012 at 7:34 AM

Come on, man. They may wish for Israel to collapse, but wipe them off the map is not a saying that exists in their language. No one is suggesting they want to be best friends. And we are the ones responsible for the rhetoric and have brought it on ourselves beginning with the coup I mentioned above.

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 5:46 PM

i believe they did say that the jewish state was a ”1 bomb state.”

svs22422 on February 24, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3