Study: Over 20 debates, Paul attacked Romney’s rivals 39 times — but never once attacked Romney

posted at 3:40 pm on February 27, 2012 by Allahpundit

Caveat: The study comes from Think Progress. But in case you’re inclined to doubt it because of its provenance, note that The Corner’s Patrick Brennan also reviewed transcripts from the last seven debates dating back to January 7 and found just one instance of Paul criticizing Romney — and that criticism was brief and mild.

Out: Conspiracy theories advanced by Ron Paul. In: Conspiracy theories involving Ron Paul.

While Paul has freely attacked Romney’s top rivals, he has never once attacked Romney…

Paul has gone beyond merely refraining from attacks. He has actively defended Romney on some of his biggest vulnerabilities…

Paul has also run advertisements attacking Romney’s key rivals at critical times. He ran hundreds of thousands of dollars in brutally negative ads attacking Gingrich in Iowa. Paul now is using his scarce funds on a television ad attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan, a key state where Paul is a non-factor.

TP’s tally of attacks by RP at the debates: 22 on Santorum, eight on Gingrich, four on Perry, four on Cain, one on Bachmann, and a big fat doughnut on Mitt. I can understand why he’d be drawn into slugfests with Santorum, who, as an extremely hawkish social con, is furthest away from Paul on the ideological spectrum within field. But Romney’s a natural Paul enemy too: He’s an establishment favorite, he paved the way for universal health care with his Massachusetts program, he’s considerably more hawkish than Paul, he has pro-choice roots, etc etc etc. Plus, insofar as he’s the consummate flip-flopper, he’s the anti-Paul; RP could have run a withering campaign against him emphasizing how likely Romney will be as president to shift with the political winds, especially vis-a-vis Paul himself. In fact, if you’d asked me before the debates began whom Paul would spend most of his time attacking, I would have guessed Mitt. What better way for a principled insurgent candidate to gain traction with the conservative base than by beating up repeatedly on a widely distrusted centrist for his betrayals of the cause? And yet … nothing.

I don’t think they’re coordinating, though — or at least, not formally. Paul’s advisors have been candid in interviews in explaining that his goal in running this time is to pile up delegates and gain some influence at the convention, either in terms of input into the party’s official 2012 platform or a primetime speaking gig or both. That being so, it’s only logical that they’d go easy on Romney. He was and is the likely nominee; the more helpful they are to him, the less resistance there’ll be to a convention role for the Paul family, especially since Romney will be nervous about alienated libertarians staying home if he freezes Paul out. RP tried running against the rest of the field in 2008 and got nothing from the establishment as thanks. This time, he’s taking a different tack. It’s working.


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

Still playing the dishonesty card I see.

Logboy on February 27, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Oh, please. If someone is going to make such a bald-faced lie about what I’ve said or believe, then I’m going to respond. So who’s playing the “dishonesty card”?

Dante on February 27, 2012 at 4:41 PM

If Romney tries to make Ron Paul Veep…

Oh, Hell no.

BlaxPac on February 27, 2012 at 3:42 PM

It might be the son, Rand Paul.

Amjean on February 27, 2012 at 4:42 PM

If RP is the same as the rest of them, then why does he keep saying that our foreign policy entices extremists to react the way they do. . .. to a GOP audience?

Notorious GOP on February 27, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Also has a nasty habit of going to South Florida and saying he’ll re-establish trade with Castro.

And of going to Iowa and saying he will end corn subsidies.

And of going to South Carolina and saying he will shrink the military.

Just because one engages in politics, doesn’t mean one is “just another politician”.

JohnGalt23 on February 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM

I think Ron Paul feels that of the Candidates Romney more closely mirrors his ideas, take a few differences. Take that as a positive or a negative….

sandee on February 27, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Assuming the stats are true, you are starting from the wrong place. Ron Paul needs a reason to attack someone; it isn’t his style otherwise. Romney has carefully not attacked him — or ANYONE ELSE who isn’t the current frontrunner AND high enough to threaten MR’s own standing. Ron hasn’t hit that yet.

Santorum attacked Ron from the beginning because he was always punching up. Ron didn’t punch down, but I suspect he now is saying the things he kinda wanted to point out at the time. Ginrich similar. Ron Paul wants conservatives to vote for him, and with G and S’s records, there is really no reason to vote for those two. Romney’s voters, on the other hand, are HAPPY with establishment, so they aren’t going to shift to Ron Paul.

Paul said there was no ‘agreement’, each were just pursuing their own interests. He has a pretty long and unbroken record of telling the truth to his supporters, but if you don’t want to believe it, you won’t.

windwardtack on February 27, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Oh, and in case anyone missed it…

According to Rasmussen, now only Romney and Paul beat Obama. ChurchLady and Newt both lose to Obama.

Senator GoAlongToGetAlong hit hardest.

JohnGalt23 on February 27, 2012 at 4:51 PM

JohnGalt23 on February 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM

I disagree with Paul on an awful lot, but I do respect him as a straight shooter. Except his tolerance for some pretty unsavory hangers on does tarnish that. I wish that he would be as forthcoming about disassociating himself from such riff raff.

MJBrutus on February 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Three scenarios:
1. President Romney with VP Ron Paul only a heartbeat away.
2. Eight years of Romney reaching across the aisle while VP Rand Paul attends funerals and super market openings. Then in 2020, VP Paul being Next-in-Line returns our Government to its Constitutional basis.
3. Romney/either Paul goes down to defeat; and with the country and the Republican Party in shambles, the establishment blames the debacle on the VP, and proceeds to trash the conservatives (see Palin, Sarah).
Which of these actually promote conservatism and the welfare of the country?

FirelandsO3 on February 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM

FirelandsO3 on February 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM

You need a new writer for your screen play.

MJBrutus on February 27, 2012 at 4:55 PM

It’s not working until he gets something.

AesopFan on February 27, 2012 at 4:30 PM

And of course he won’t get anything.

I actually feel bad for Paultards buying into this “conspiracy”. Romney would never consider Paul as a VP. This is about a crazy a theory as Herr Doktor’s 9/11 theories.

Norwegian on February 27, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Ron Paul would be Romney’s insurance policy (like Biden for Obama).

FirelandsO3 on February 27, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Let me see, the most conservative candidate in the race on the planet constantly protects the most liberal candidate in the race GOP anytime one or more of the more conservative candidates get near him.

I am thinking that the deal (whether one exists is beyond the pale, the only issue is what it is) involves Ron getting to be Treasury Secretary.

molonlabe28 on February 27, 2012 at 5:03 PM

And of course he won’t get anything.

I actually feel bad for Paultards buying into this “conspiracy”. Romney would never consider Paul as a VP. This is about a crazy a theory as Herr Doktor’s 9/11 theories.

Norwegian on February 27, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Paul as Sec Treasury, Rand as VP

Socialcons contemplate suicide as the heretics take over the GOP haha

1984 in real life on February 27, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Ron Paul is jealous of Santorum, Reagan, etc.

shinty on February 27, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Reagan, possibly. But St. Scrotum? So far his loins were the most productive part of him.

Archivarix on February 27, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Well, the blemished yet accomplished Santorum is beating the pure yet accomplishment-free Paul…

Besides jealousy, I can’t think of any other reason for Paul to keep letting Romney off the hook while trashing his more conservative opponents…

shinty on February 27, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Hmmm. So the candidates who attack Romney are co-conspirators?

whatcat on February 27, 2012 at 5:08 PM

accomplished Santorum

Euphemism of the day

1984 in real life on February 27, 2012 at 5:09 PM

And of course he won’t get anything.

I actually feel bad for Paultards buying into this “conspiracy”. Romney would never consider Paul as a VP. This is about a crazy a theory as Herr Doktor’s 9/11 theories.

Norwegian on February 27, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Which Paul fans are saying Romney would consider him for VP?

Notorious GOP on February 27, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Well, the blemished yet accomplished Santorum is beating the pure yet accomplishment-free Paul…

Besides jealousy, I can’t think of any other reason for Paul to keep letting Romney off the hook while trashing his more conservative opponents…

shinty on February 27, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Jealousy? LOL.

Notorious GOP on February 27, 2012 at 5:15 PM

3. Romney/either Paul goes down to defeat; and with the country and the Republican Party in shambles, the establishment blames the debacle on the VP, and proceeds to trash the conservatives (see Palin, Sarah).
Which of these actually promote conservatism and the welfare of the country?

FirelandsO3 on February 27, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Number 3. If Romney’s the nominee, it won’t matter if he chooses Zombie Lincoln to be his running mate. The GOP is going to implode, and it’s not going to make a bit of difference in the aftermath who the establishment tries to savage. The GOP will be in the hands of the rubes, or it will cease to exist.

ddrintn on February 27, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Ah yes. The “most honest and pricipled man in America” is willing to whore himself out to a big government liberal with an R next to his name.

Hard Right on February 27, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Paul as Sec Treasury, Rand as VP

Socialcons contemplate suicide as the heretics take over the GOP haha

1984 in real life on February 27, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Hahahahahaha. Now tell me how they win without them in the first place.

ddrintn on February 27, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Let me see, the most conservative candidate in the race on the planet constantly protects the most liberal candidate in the race GOP anytime one or more of the more conservative candidates get near him.

I am thinking that the deal (whether one exists is beyond the pale, the only issue is what it is) involves Ron getting to be Treasury Secretary.

molonlabe28 on February 27, 2012 at 5:03 PM

“Libertarian” equals “conservative” now? We can see clearly which labels have the positive connotations and which do not, anyway. I wouldn’t call Ron Paul a conservative.

ddrintn on February 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Ron Paul, the nut, not attacking the liar in chief. Wonders of wonders.

they lie on February 27, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Don’t know if it’s true but I can tell you that the possibility of an alliance between Romney & Paul sucks the arrogant wind right out of the libs. I post behind enemy lines over at Huffington Post.

trish333 on February 27, 2012 at 5:27 PM

accomplished Santorum

Euphemism of the day

1984 in real life on February 27, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Nice edit, ’84… I said ‘blemished yet accomplished Santorum’.

For Paul, we can still use the word ‘irrelevant’ to describe his time in congress.

shinty on February 27, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Well, the blemished yet accomplished Santorum is beating the pure yet accomplishment-free Paul…

Besides jealousy, I can’t think of any other reason for Paul to keep letting Romney off the hook while trashing his more conservative opponents…

shinty on February 27, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Jealousy? LOL.

Notorious GOP on February 27, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Yes.

Paul just might be jealous of the ‘impure’ Santorum who is beating him like a drum in poll after poll.

For me, nothing else explains Paul’s behavior… I do admit, I can’t see any rational explanation for Paul’s ‘strategy’.

shinty on February 27, 2012 at 5:36 PM

On one hand, everyone in this race needs a strategy to win and I won’t begrudge teaming up with someone for the win.

On the other, both these sorry ba*ta**s sat aside Santorum last week and snipered the guy about being a team player while they were already swapping eskimo kisses and blowing in each others ears.

Everyone knows Romney will bleed ya if you are leading in the polls and to some point it is to be eepected and admired, in that at least we know after he is done beating the shite out of us he will start kicking Barry’s butt.

But what stands out about this episode is that Paul is such a lap-dog. How can a Paul supporter spin it any other way. Their silence on this is ear shattering.

Ron is a sellout and is just waiting at the door with Mitt’s slippers in his mouth so he can please his master. Hardly presidential.

There. Go ahead you little Paulbots, have at it.
Mudhog

Mudhog on February 27, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Paul just might be jealous of the ‘impure’ Santorum who is beating him like a drum in poll after poll.

It’s the delegate count that matters.

For me, nothing else explains Paul’s behavior… I do admit, I can’t see any rational explanation for Paul’s ‘strategy’.

shinty on February 27, 2012 at 5:36 PM

I have no doubt that this is true.

Dante on February 27, 2012 at 5:45 PM

“Libertarian” equals “conservative” now? We can see clearly which labels have the positive connotations and which do not, anyway. I wouldn’t call Ron Paul a conservative.

ddrintn on February 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Why not? Libertarians support limited government and favor liberty. Isn’t that what conservatives supposedly support?

Dante on February 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM

For me, nothing else explains Paul’s behavior… I do admit, I can’t see any rational explanation for Paul’s ‘strategy’.

shinty on February 27, 2012 at 5:36 PM

so there isn’t and never will be another Reagan. The establishment are very afraid of convservatives and libertrians joining together. see Reagan see Tea party and 2010 on what happens when they do. b the establishment sees to it that a liberterian runs in all open primary years since 1988. the rinos biggest fear is that those two groups will unite. and drive the rinos from power. So regardless of it is Paul in 2008 pr 2012 or Pat Buchannan in 2000. In 1996 they didn’t need one sinc e Perot ran. The establishment needs some patsy like Pat or Paul to siphon off that 10-15% of the gop base so that no candidate threatens the Rinos minority of around 30% of the party.

unseen on February 27, 2012 at 5:50 PM

*SIGH*

If RP is the same as the rest of them, then why does he keep saying that our foreign policy entices extremists to react the way they do. . .. to a GOP audience?

Notorious GOP on February 27, 2012 at 4:41 PM

The same does not = identical.

Bmore on February 27, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Politics meets Reality TV — wasn’t this typical strategy on Survivor? I honestly don’t know – I’m probably the only person in America that can honestly say he’s never watched reality TV…

affenhauer on February 27, 2012 at 5:57 PM

If he’s never attacked Romney, then he must agree with him.

So why do we need him?

itsspideyman on February 27, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Ron is a sellout and is just waiting at the door with Mitt’s slippers in his mouth so he can please his master. Hardly presidential.

There. Go ahead you little Paulbots, have at it.
Mudhog

Mudhog on February 27, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Does Ramirez read Hot Gas?

slickwillie2001 on February 27, 2012 at 6:00 PM

The same does not = identical.

Bmore on February 27, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Well….technically….

29Victor on February 27, 2012 at 6:03 PM

This post is why AllahPundit is the best blogger here by miles.

Ed would have stretched to call Paul a hypocrite for strategically aligning with Romney. And with no proof, just a heavy dose of hateful bias.

And Allah will reason objectively. No cheap shots, but no favors either.

Jimmy Liberty on February 27, 2012 at 6:09 PM

For the love of all that is good, please, Ron Paul just go the fluff away.

SparkPlug on February 27, 2012 at 6:11 PM

I like both Ed and Allah the same. Ed is way classy.

SparkPlug on February 27, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Really
A
Natural
Development

profitsbeard on February 27, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Really
A
Nutty
Dude

Hard Right on February 27, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Principles are so easily subservient to political expediency and a VP job.

Don L on February 27, 2012 at 6:47 PM

“Libertarian” equals “conservative” now? We can see clearly which labels have the positive connotations and which do not, anyway. I wouldn’t call ‘t thPaul a conservative.

ddrintn on February 27, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Why not? Libertarians support limited government and favor liberty. Isn’t that what conservatives supposedly support?

Yes, and the Nazies supported good food and cold beer -isn’t that what Americans supported…
Sorry, worst logic in years -libertarians are not conservatives, unless Obama is a honest man who loves God and country…

Don L on February 27, 2012 at 6:52 PM

I think Santorum is colluding with Santorum to take out Ron Paul. I heard Santorum promised him the VP slot if he ran twenty stories on Romney and Paul conspiring against Santorum. BTW, before you decide to doubt me, please remember that I have just as much proof of this as HA does that Romney and Paul are colluding.

iwasbornwithit on February 27, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Don L on February 27, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Then you know nothing of libertarianism or conservatism.

Dante on February 27, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Well….technically….

29Victor on February 27, 2012 at 6:03 PM

; ), makes it harder to parse. Or is it easier?

Bmore on February 27, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Yes, and the Nazies supported good food and cold beer -isn’t that what Americans supported… Sorry, worst logic in years -libertarians are not conservatives, unless Obama is a honest man who loves God and country…

Don L on February 27, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Please tell me that you weren’t implying that libertarians are Nazis.

iwasbornwithit on February 27, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Yes, and the Nazies supported good food and cold beer -isn’t that what Americans supported… Sorry, worst logic in years -libertarians are not conservatives, unless Obama is a honest man who loves God and country…

Don L on February 27, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Please tell me that you weren’t implying that libertarians are Nazis.

iwasbornwithit on February 27, 2012 at 7:15 PM

I thought Germans liked warm beer?

Bmore on February 27, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Norwegian on February 27, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Heh, “Paultards” aren’t buying it.

It’s the rabid anti-Romney crowd that is using this as fear mongering.

gyrmnix on February 27, 2012 at 7:24 PM

iwasbornwithit on February 27, 2012 at 7:15 PM

I’ve noticed that Ron Paul related threads are always Godwined the fastest.

gyrmnix on February 27, 2012 at 7:26 PM

A Romney / Rand Paul ticket is pure fantasy – never would Romney, or anyone in the GOP in their right mind, enter a general election with a running mate whose foreign policy principles diametrically oppose those of the future president. Either of the Pauls may get a cabinet position, or be put in charge of “government reform” or the like, but not placed a heartbeat away from being commander in chief. That would be electoral suicide.

A Romney / Santorum ticket is almost as unlikely, by the way. Romney’s and Santorum’s combined negatives pretty much cover the entire independent electorate, while neutralizing each others positives. If we want Santorum on the ticket, we have to elect him to the top.

Captain Obvious on February 27, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Santorum’s last debate was pretty revealing. He voted to double the size of the department of education, voted to expand medicare (part d), voted to give millions to planned parenthood and endorsed Arlen Specter. For Pete’s sake, he even endorsed Romney in 2008 and romneycare was passed in 2006. He voted to give millions in foreign aid to North Korean dictator Kim Jong II.
He didn’t even try to deny it. And some people here are trying to compare Santorum to Reagan? Mr.government is the solution Santorum?
Santorum can’t answer for his horrible record, so he has to whine about an imaginary conspiracy.

Gall on February 27, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Cant get enough of the incessant hand-wringing over Paul’s focus on Santorum and Gingrich. Guess it helps that his attacks are highly effective (last debate he single-handedly demolished Santorum), but it’s amazing to see those who view Paul as a lunatic fringe candidate demanding that he attack Romney.

One doesnt need to turn to arguments of bad faith– he’s “whoring out” or “selling out”– to understand Paul’s motives. Santorum has declared himself an enemy of the libertarian movement within the party, going so far as to say he would actively work to limit its influence. Can’t think of a more disqualifying thing for a Republican to say, from Paul’s perspective…

bocat on February 27, 2012 at 7:44 PM

One doesnt need to turn to arguments of bad faith– he’s “whoring out” or “selling out”– to understand Paul’s motives. Santorum has declared himself an enemy of the libertarian movement within the party, going so far as to say he would actively work to limit its influence. Can’t think of a more disqualifying thing for a Republican to say, from Paul’s perspective…

bocat on February 27, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Nailed it. Sister Christian is an enemy of liberty and doesn’t even like the Tea Party. Now he is trying to claim he’s a bona fide fiscal conservative after attacking Paul in earlier debates? He got what was coming to him.

iwasbornwithit on February 27, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Please tell me that you weren’t implying that libertarians are Nazis.

iwasbornwithit on February 27, 2012 at 7:15 PM

They’re just about equally popular in this country.

Why not? Libertarians support limited government and favor liberty. Isn’t that what conservatives supposedly support?

Dante on February 27, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Libertarians couldn’t care less about the size of government. That’s why so many apparently are getting behind Romney. They care more about someone objecting to their buying a bag of weed or being stopped at a sobriety checkpoint.

ddrintn on February 27, 2012 at 8:23 PM

It’s the rabid anti-Romney crowd that is using this as fear mongering.

gyrmnix on February 27, 2012 at 7:24 PM

No one’s really “rabidly” anti-Romney. Romney doesn’t inspire rabid reactions either way. There are those who think he’d be a lousy presidential candidate and are sick of being preached at otherwise for the past 3 years, and there are others who passionately want to stick it to conservatives. That’s where your “rabidity” comes in.

ddrintn on February 27, 2012 at 8:26 PM

ddrintn on February 27, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Could you be any more dishonest? Rick ain’t getting the nomination after AZ and MI. It’s over.

iwasbornwithit on February 27, 2012 at 8:42 PM

One doesnt need to turn to arguments of bad faith– he’s “whoring out” or “selling out”– to understand Paul’s motives. Santorum has declared himself an enemy of the libertarian movement within the party, going so far as to say he would actively work to limit its influence. Can’t think of a more disqualifying thing for a Republican to say, from Paul’s perspective…

bocat on February 27, 2012 at 7:44 PM

That would be fine if he were running on the Libertarian ticket. But as Paul is running for the GOP nomination, using himself as the ultimate conservative litmus test, his motives are as clear as they have been since he left the party under Reagan.

Mudhog on February 27, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Could you be any more dishonest? Rick ain’t getting the nomination after AZ and MI. It’s over.

iwasbornwithit on February 27, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Dishonest? How about saying you’re a small-government libertarian while shilling for Romney? That’s dishonesty.

ddrintn on February 27, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Cant get enough of the incessant hand-wringing over Paul’s focus on Santorum and Gingrich. Guess it helps that his attacks are highly effective (last debate he single-handedly demolished Santorum), but it’s amazing to see those who view Paul as a lunatic fringe candidate demanding that he attack Romney.

the only realistic(i’m not saying it has a chance) is for Paul to be the Last non-romney standing. it makes perfect sense for him to concentrate on Santorum/Gingrich.

On another note Ron Paul and Romney became friends in 2008 and have socialised together(at least i read this) and Ann Romney and ron pauls wife are friends. Hell i’m sure they’ve met Rand.

Romney could do worse than select RAND PAUL as vp.I see it as less a stretch than Sarah Palin in 2008.

gerrym51 on February 27, 2012 at 9:22 PM

A Romney / Rand Paul ticket is pure fantasy – never would Romney, or anyone in the GOP in their right mind, enter a general election with a running mate whose foreign policy principles diametrically oppose those of the future president. Either of the Pauls may get a cabinet position, or be put in charge of “government reform” or the like, but not placed a heartbeat away from being commander in chief. That would be electoral suicide.

although i’m sure he has some views of his father dometically I actually don’t know if he shares his father foreighn policy views.

From what i’ve read MItt Romney is different on some of his views from his father. why couldn’t that apply to Rand Paul

gerrym51 on February 27, 2012 at 9:36 PM

That would be fine if he were running on the Libertarian ticket. But as Paul is running for the GOP nomination, using himself as the ultimate conservative litmus test, his motives are as clear as they have been since he left the party under Reagan.

Mudhog on February 27, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Read a bit more carefully. I pointed out that “Santorum has declared himself an enemy of the libertarian movement within the party“.

Santorum’s exact statement was: “I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party.”

Wondering why Paul attacks Santorum with such frequency is a bit like someone wondering why a John Bolton presidential candidate might choose to single out Ron Paul for criticism– it just makes sense given the ideological flavors they represent.

bocat on February 27, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Romney could do worse than select RAND PAUL as vp.I see it as less a stretch than Sarah Palin in 2008.

gerrym51 on February 27, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Rand Paul wouldn’t have any effect at all. And anyway when you have a nominee who’s so desperate to have a running mate pull his butt over the finish line, what you have is a looooooozer. And we’ve been hearing about various VP saviors for Romney for months now. Rubio, Christie, whoever.

ddrintn on February 27, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Romney could do worse than select RAND PAUL as vp.I see it as less a stretch than Sarah Palin in 2008.

gerrym51 on February 27, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Paul would be a terrible choice. He needs somebody with more experience, preferably a governor. T-Paw might be a good choice. Daniels would be a great choice, if he’s up for it.

ghostwriter on February 27, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Dishonest? How about saying you’re a small-government libertarian while shilling for Romney? That’s dishonesty.

ddrintn on February 27, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Please provide examples or links of Ron Paul shilling for Romney. Please provide examples of libertarians or Ron Paul supporters shilling for Romney. You can’t because those examples don’t exist. Therefore, you are dishonest.

iwasbornwithit on February 27, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Read a bit more carefully. I pointed out that “Santorum has declared himself an enemy of the libertarian movement within the party“.

Santorum’s exact statement was: “I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party.”

Wondering why Paul attacks Santorum with such frequency is a bit like someone wondering why a John Bolton presidential candidate might choose to single out Ron Paul for criticism– it just makes sense given the ideological flavors they represent.

bocat on February 27, 2012 at 9:37 PM

I understand what you are saying here bobcat. And I agree. Paul has a beef with conservatism. He doesn’t have a beef with Mitt. Therefore, I feel like that reinforces my view that Mitt is no conservative. If he were, he would garner the same assaults the other conservatives have.

Mitt doesn’t have the base because the base sees through him. That being said, this is the primary, not the general. In the general we will rally around our nominee even if it is Paul. I just want the MOST conservative out there and it’s not Mitt or Ron.

Mudhog on February 27, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Dear God, if Romney chooses Paul as VP I’m done with this election. Two crap sandwiches rolled into one.

dukecitygirl on February 27, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Dear God, if Romney chooses Paul as VP I’m done with this election. Two crap sandwiches rolled into one.

dukecitygirl on February 27, 2012 at 10:22 PM

We will need a kiss-and-make-up ticket, the winner with the runner-up as VP. ABO.

slickwillie2001 on February 27, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Even Krauthammer knows this rumor is bollocks. Only designed to solidify support for Santorum as the ‘victim’ of a vast RINO conspiracy or something.

I expect Ed to post this garbage, but Allah?

Firefly_76 on February 27, 2012 at 11:14 PM

ddrintn on February 27, 2012 at 8:26 PM

There are plenty of rabid anti-Romney folks around here. I’m not necessarily trying to be demeaning when I say that, just that their hate or loathing leads them to use some pretty weak reasoning against Romney (such as the whole Bain Capital attacks a month or so back). If it makes you feel any better, I admit I’m rabidly anti-Santorum.

slickwillie2001 on February 27, 2012 at 11:04 PM

If the pattern holds, then the ticket would be Romney/Santorum. That’s an instant loss in the general (lets alienate conservatives, women, minorities and gays all in one ticket). Regardless of who the winner is, they’ll have to look outside the current field for their running mate.

gyrmnix on February 27, 2012 at 11:33 PM

I don’t believe there’s anything nefarious going on. Ignore the power of wives at your peril. Their wives have become close friends and if one candidate were to slam the other he’d have h*ll to pay.

simple as that

MaggiePoo on February 28, 2012 at 12:00 AM

It’s a brokered deal. Paul is a free market capitalist and romney is largest capitalist out there. Mittens will be parting with some of his capital in order for this deal to be consumated. Just how much and when all depends. Ethical behavior or just down and dirty politics? It means nothing if you don’t have a conscience.

Fuquay Steve on February 28, 2012 at 7:29 AM

IF RonMe won the election he could pardon Ron for his ILLEGAL financial activities. HMM!

Time for me to go vote for Santorum.

DannoJyd on February 28, 2012 at 7:34 AM

Isn’t this interesting, considering that the Romney supporters and the Paul supporters both argue a lot like liberals? And that they both tend to be nasty, condescending, and arrogant?

Obviously painting with a broad brush here, since I can think of exceptions to the above. But the rule does seem to hold true.

tom on February 28, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Even Krauthammer knows this rumor is bollocks. Only designed to solidify support for Santorum as the ‘victim’ of a vast RINO conspiracy or something.

I expect Ed to post this garbage, but Allah?

Firefly_76 on February 27, 2012 at 11:14 PM

How dare they post their own opinion on the rumor based on independent facts!!

tom on February 28, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Comment pages: 1 2