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

If Romney tries to make Ron Paul Veep…

Oh, Hell no.

BlaxPac on February 27, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Caveat: The study comes from Think ProgressOppression

FIFY

Chip on February 27, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Has anybody ever seen Romney and Paul speaking, at the same time?

OhEssYouCowboys on February 27, 2012 at 3:43 PM

I heard a rumor that Ron Paul and Romney had some sort of alliance. Has anyone else heard about this?

Flange on February 27, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Caveat: the study is wrong.

I’ve seen it at least twice. the video is out there. on Romneycare and big government.

This is BS

Drunk Report on February 27, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Politics is mud wrestling on steroids. Nothing really to see here.

chemman on February 27, 2012 at 3:45 PM

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.

Yeah, but what if Romney gets the 1145 delgates he needs before we reach the convention? Why would he give Ron Paul any primetime exposure? Hell, I’ve been wondering if Mittens would shut out the Cuda and she’s beloved by a huge chunk of the base along with the Tea Party. I don’t think he and the GOP establishment would hesitate for one second to tell Dr. Paul to go take a hike.

Doughboy on February 27, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Someone is eying for the VP slot….

liberal4life on February 27, 2012 at 3:45 PM

If Romney tries to make Ron Paul Veep…

Oh, Hell no.

BlaxPac on February 27, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Ron Paul?

No.

Rand Paul?

Hmm. Hmmmmmmm.

Vyce on February 27, 2012 at 3:45 PM

How many times did Bachmann or Pawlenty attack Romney?

The not-Romneys attack each other trying to be ‘the’ not-Romney…been that way the entire time. Santorum only brought this up since it is his turn.

ChrisL on February 27, 2012 at 3:46 PM

The good Herr Doktor, Mittens’ attack coot.

catmman on February 27, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Opposites attract.

Waggoner on February 27, 2012 at 3:47 PM

How many times have Sanotrum and Newt attacked each other compared to how many times they attacked Romney. Add Perry into that equation.

What a bunch of babies. Ron Paul doesnt join the weekly Romney pile-ons and has the temerity to call out the phoniness of Newt’s and Rick’s claim of being super-duper conservative their whjole lives and catches flak.

Whiners and babies. Cant take the heat. Cant take the pressure.

swamp_yankee on February 27, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Gran Paul: anarcho-liberal-tarian man of principle!

wraithby on February 27, 2012 at 3:49 PM

It’s all about Rand…

… and his seat at the table of power in the coming years.

Seven Percent Solution on February 27, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Wow. Another article on this completely made up story. Oh well, at least AP comes to the correct conclusion in the last paragraph.

I don’t think they’re coordinating, though

iwasbornwithit on February 27, 2012 at 3:49 PM

“Ron Paul Denies He’s Secretly Working With Romney…”
Let’s not stop there…
UNIONS DENY THEY ARE SECRETLY WORKING WITH OBOZO
PLANNED PARENTHOOD ABORTION FACTORIES DENY THEY ARE WORKING WITH D-CRAT SOCIALISTS
moRON PAUL DENIES HIS NEWSLETTERS ARE ANTI-SEMITIC, RACIST EXCREMENT
ECO-NUT EXTREMISTS DENY THEY ARE WORKING WITH THE LUNATIC-LEFT
ALL SOCIALIST MEDIA LEFTIST PROPAGANDISTS DENY THEY ARE STOOGES AND PUPPETS OF THE D-CRAT SOCIALIST PARTY

…and on, and on, and on…

TeaPartyNation on February 27, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Ron Paul is principled and everyone else is not.

-Paultards

CycloneCDB on February 27, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Also, if Ron Paul realizes that he isn’t going to win, why the hell would he help Santorum or Gingrich, two people which he absolutely hates, by attacking a friend who in Ron Paul’s mind is better suited to lead the country with his business background? Ron Paul could destroy Romney if he wanted to in the debates, but then we’d have Santorum as the nominee who is essentially the anti-christ to libertarians.

thphilli on February 27, 2012 at 3:49 PM

If Romney tries to make Ron Paul Veep…

Oh, Hell no.

BlaxPac on February 27, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Rand Paul?

Hmm. Hmmmmmmm.

Vyce on February 27, 2012 at 3:45 PM

If there is a Veep deal, it will be for Rand. Rand could also get a plum cabinet position.

Paul has said he plans to retire after this election. He’s getting up there in years so I believe that.

Doomberg on February 27, 2012 at 3:50 PM

So if Santorum wins does that mean Obama won’t gang up on him? Stop your crying.

Zaggs on February 27, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Doughboy on February 27, 2012 at 3:45 PM

He did the same thing in 08. Stayed in the race until June or whatever, months after every one else dropped out and after it was a all but decided.

He had a speaking spot at the convention, etc. What did it get anyone (other than stroking the old coots ego, that is)? Nothing.

His supporters went on and voted third party or for Obama anyway. Just like many will do this time.

catmman on February 27, 2012 at 3:51 PM

I’d like to reiterate that if there is a tacit alliance between them, it’s political genius.

There are three factions of the modern GOP: establishment moderates, base conservatives, and libertarians. A full-throated endorsement by Paul of Romney, for whatever quid pro quo up to but not including the elder Paul on the ticket, would be beneficial to the party by bringing the libertarians into the fold and keeping them there.

KingGold on February 27, 2012 at 3:51 PM

I see nothing strange about the candidate who loudly proclaims his love for small government ignoring the candidate whose has produced one of the most intrusive programs in our history. Then again, Romney is a man of the little people; he even knows some NASCAR car owners./

FirelandsO3 on February 27, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Closet Mormon.

fogw on February 27, 2012 at 3:51 PM

No wonder I can’t find any tinfoil at the grocery store.

JPeterman on February 27, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Also, if Ron Paul realizes that he isn’t going to win, why the hell would he help Santorum or Gingrich, two people which he absolutely hates, by attacking a friend who in Ron Paul’s mind is better suited to lead the country with his business background? Ron Paul could destroy Romney if he wanted to in the debates, but then we’d have Santorum as the nominee who is essentially the anti-christ to libertarians.

thphilli

Ding, ding, ding, ding. Circle gets the square.

Zaggs on February 27, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Ron Paul to Mitt Romney: Make my boy your VP pick and I’ll leave you alone.

CurtZHP on February 27, 2012 at 3:52 PM

I was never good at math but it’s not hard to solve this one: Paul attacking Romney’s rivals = COFFEE exemption at White House

apocalypse on February 27, 2012 at 3:53 PM

His supporters went on and voted third party or for Obama anyway. Just like many will do this time.

catmman on February 27, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Keep ignoring or insulting them, and they indeed will. But the most important thing, of course, is that it won’t be your fault. Yeah, that’s what matters.

Archivarix on February 27, 2012 at 3:53 PM

He had a speaking spot at the convention, etc. What did it get anyone (other than stroking the old coots ego, that is)? Nothing.

catmman on February 27, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Paul didn’t speak at the RNC in 2008. His supporters defected and held their own convention.

KingGold on February 27, 2012 at 3:54 PM

It seems like there is a lot more evidence of a Hotair/Santorum conspiracy against Ron Paul than there is of a Paul/Romney alliance.

iwasbornwithit on February 27, 2012 at 3:54 PM

I’m not sure about this . It does seem like collusion, EXCEPT

from Pauls point of view his opponents are the anybody but Romney
candidates.

For him to have a logical path to the nomination( I did not say it would happen-just be logical) he would have to get it down to just him and romney).

so it makes sense he would deploy his resources against the others

gerrym51 on February 27, 2012 at 3:55 PM

There is zero sense – even from a Paulbot’s position – to install Rand or Ron Paul as VP. It is a mostly ceremonial position with next to zero actual influence on the policy unless the Senate is evenly split, and even then I hardly see a VP defy the President. I say The Uncle is after a Fed chair or Treasury.

Archivarix on February 27, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Ron Paul to Mitt Romney: Make my boy your VP pick and I’ll leave you alone.

CurtZHP on February 27, 2012 at 3:52 PM

This. I think Paul is pushing for his son to be VP, not him. And it makes sense in a lot of ways. Only problem is that Paul is too inexperienced, and would risk a Sarah Palin like reaction (except, obviously, he is much smarter than she is).

milcus on February 27, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Think Progress. Liberals stirring up more trouble.

But think about it this way: Maybe Paul as a libertarian has far more trust for a religioiusly oreinted businessman than for all those other career politicians currently running. I don’t recall Paul going after Cain that much either, perhaps for similar reasons.

rhombus on February 27, 2012 at 3:56 PM

I live in Michigan and Obama has been attacking Romney on TV several times an hour but never attacks Santorum or Gingrich. Do you think Santorum/Gingrich and Obama have a back room deal?

dpeters8 on February 27, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Obligatory.

gyrmnix on February 27, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Paul is a loon, and Mittens has no principles. Bird of a feather, fly together.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 27, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Yes, you’d think Paul would have been all over rino Romney. Same with attack hound BACHMAN, who went after -all- the Not Romneys with abandon. Yet not a peep against Romney. Seems clear that Mitt tried to rig this thing from the start. No wonder an unacceptable romneycare rino is somehow moving inexorably toward the nomination.

anotherJoe on February 27, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Roger Hedgecock (talk radio host that I like) has been suggesting this theory for months. He states that Romney and Paul became friends during the last election and genuinely like each other as well as have an alliance. Also, says Hedgecock, they see each other socially and their wives are friends as well. From Hedgecock’s view, this isn’t a bad thing, and I agree. If Romney gets close to winning the nomination (as I’m guessing he will), perhaps Paul and he can come to some negotiated settlement which will move Romney to the right of where he is now. Another possibility is that in return for Paul’s support, Romney can lend some of his muscle to Ron Paul to prop up his son Rand. Rand is a true Tea Party advocate and if any way he can be given more influence, that would help our country, in my opinion (so long as it’s not in foreign policy).

Another positive to look at is that if Romney wins the nomination, it will help Republican chances in the general election if Paul supporters swallow their pride and come and vote. If Paul enthusiastically supports Romney and Paul supporters as a result do actually vote, that will help our chances against Obama.

That all said, I support Santorum (or Gingrich) still for the nomination because I support Tea Party, and Romney is not that; but if Romney does win or get close to winning, I see his alliance with Paul as a silver lining.

Burke on February 27, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Its POLITICS!

What part of POLITICS don’t you folks understand?

belad on February 27, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Keep ignoring or insulting them, and they indeed will. But the most important thing, of course, is that it won’t be your fault. Yeah, that’s what matters.

Archivarix on February 27, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Please. If you’re as ‘principled’ as you deem yourselves to be, my trifling snippets of criticism about you or Herr Doktor would hardly dissuade you from voting GOP during a Presidential election.

Unless you really are retarded, then…

I was under the impression we were trying to defeat Obama, not kiss whiny Paultards butts.

catmman on February 27, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Obligatory.

gyrmnix

Great. Now I want to scarf down a bag of Hersey kisses.

Zaggs on February 27, 2012 at 3:59 PM

KingGold on February 27, 2012 at 3:54 PM

You’re right. Could have sworn he did. Maybe I’m thinking CPAC that year?

catmman on February 27, 2012 at 4:00 PM

I’d like to reiterate that if there is a tacit alliance between them, it’s political genius.

There are three factions of the modern GOP: establishment moderates, base conservatives, and libertarians. A full-throated endorsement by Paul of Romney, for whatever quid pro quo up to but not including the elder Paul on the ticket, would be beneficial to the party by bringing the libertarians into the fold and keeping them there.

Yes. Seriously, the only people who could see this as a BAD thing — the chance to bring a sizable chunk of wildly motivated voters who we’d written off as lost to the GOP entirely — are people whose primary goal in this election is to Stop Romney, and who are indifferent to actually beating Obama (or consider it a tertiary matter). The one thing we’d seen over the Bush years was the fraying, and ultimate fracturing, of the classic Buckley/Meyer ‘fusionist’ coalition of conservatives and libertarians due to Bush’s big government/big-spending agenda and the “hope and change” mantra of Obama. Any chance to rebuild that coalition, to weld it together the way the Tea Party actually managed to briefly do in 2010, should be WELCOMED.

Rick Santorum can’t do that. He is an avowed opponent of libertarian influence in the GOP — he can’t say it enough! — AND he is also a big government religious moralizer…exactly the type of person who would further widen that critical suture in the GOP’s winning coalition.

But Mitt Romney can. And especially if he gets a stamp of approval — whether tacit or explicit — from Paul.

I know there will be tons of people here who scoff about that and start shrieking about Romneycare as a means of avoiding the responsibility of thinking critically about my argument, but it’s actually true. And what’s more, those people are vastly underestimately the elemental, gut-level repulsion that Rick Santorum inspires in a massive number of conservatives and libertarians. They wave away the difficulty by simply saying “oh no, those people aren’t REAL conservatives anyway.” But of course that’s begging the question, which is about how Santorum shinks the party’s tent down to a rump minority that will never win national elections.

Esoteric on February 27, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Here’s my theory… Please allow me to build my case.

Reagan vs. Congress. W vs MSM. Romney vs. Santorum, Bachmann, etc. Each time, when the heat is on, Ron Paul trashes the more conservative combatant. Why?

Well, let’s look at Santorum for example. He wrote welfare reform and helped pass it. His voting record actually favors taxpayers. But Santorum has also compromised to make things happen. He has a record of accomplishment but with blemishes.

Now we have Ron Paul. He’s ideologically pure (at least in his own mind). He’s never compromised. But he’s also never played a significant role in congress.

So people like Reagan, W, Santorum and others get things done, but not in a ‘clean’ way. And they get lots of attention, because they matter in the process of government. Ron Paul has always been irrelevant in the process of government.

Ron Paul is jealous of Santorum, Reagan, etc.

The impure Santorum is beating pristine Paul in the primaries, and it makes Ron Paul crazy. So Paul does what he always does to get attention (which also seems to be very important to him)… he becomes ‘famous’ by again becoming the Republican who dumps on Republicans. So, although Paul is irrelevant in congress, he at least gets lots of tasty MSM coverage in the meantime.

(Yes, I know, Paul has his own earmarks and pork, and he usually gives the lib Romney a pass, but again, in Paul’s own mind he’s the ‘perfect’ candidate.)

Just something to think about…

shinty on February 27, 2012 at 4:01 PM

The better question is how many times has Romney gone after Ron Paul and How many times did Santorum? Payback is a you know what Rick.

Natebo on February 27, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Why do people even care? So what if Ron Paul and Romney have agreed not to hit each other? It’s not like Paul and Romney have escaped this primary run without any scathing attacks. In fact, Romney has been attacked so much from so many different candidates, would it really make any difference if Paul attacked him?

cd98 on February 27, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Um, who cares if they are? Is it against the law? Who cares other than Think Progress and Mark Levin?

AYNBLAND on February 27, 2012 at 4:02 PM

I’d like to reiterate that if there is a tacit alliance between them, it’s political genius.

There are three factions of the modern GOP: establishment moderates, base conservatives, and libertarians. A full-throated endorsement by Paul of Romney, for whatever quid pro quo up to but not including the elder Paul on the ticket, would be beneficial to the party by bringing the libertarians into the fold and keeping them there.

KingGold on February 27, 2012 at 3:51 PM

And you don’t need any back room meetings or smoking gun memos to have an alliance. For smart people, it’s obvious. Libertarians draw support from disgruntled Democrats, Independents AND Repubulicans. And yes, absolutely it’s political genius. I’d be disappointed it if they didn’t see how useful an alliance that would be..

rhombus on February 27, 2012 at 4:03 PM

I was under the impression we were trying to defeat Obama, not kiss whiny Paultards butts.

catmman on February 27, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Paul supporters are “whiny”…not Santorum supporters enabled by the media to distract from his horrendous record and AZ debate performance with this nothing story.

Anyhew. He blew it as the anti-Romney. Just accept it.

iwasbornwithit on February 27, 2012 at 4:03 PM

I was under the impression we were trying to defeat Obama, not kiss whiny Paultards butts.

catmman on February 27, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Dale Carnegie? Is that you?

HTL on February 27, 2012 at 4:04 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

There is zero sense – even from a Paulbot’s position – to install Rand or Ron Paul as VP. It is a mostly ceremonial position with next to zero actual influence on the policy unless the Senate is evenly split, and even then I hardly see a VP defy the President. I say The Uncle is after a Fed chair or Treasury.

Archivarix on February 27, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Since presidents started choosing their running mates, they have so often made their choice with an aim of securing a voting block that they wouldn’t otherwise win.

I’m not a believer in this “conspiracy”, but it would make sense for Romney to take Ron Paul as VP to grab the libertarians, or Rand Paul to try for the Tea Party folks.

RedCrow on February 27, 2012 at 4:05 PM

 
What is the motive for this article?
Is the author a Democrat?
 

ignatzk on February 27, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Paul probably appreciates Romney’s Tenth Amendment justification of Romneycare. And, unlike Romney, Santorum actually violated the oath of office with his dozens and dozens of votes to expand the federal government. (Of course, Romney would have done the same thing.) Santorum is also a warmonger-dunce who has gone out of his way to attack Paul for not accepting his view that Iran hates America not because we occupy each of her neighbors, but because we like freedom, baseball, and apple pie.

EddieC on February 27, 2012 at 4:07 PM

I wonder if he’s hedging his bets….?

ted c on February 27, 2012 at 4:07 PM

I could see Ron Paul sucking up to Romney trying to advance the case for his son and Romney would have no problem making a promise like that. The question is can he deliver his rabid supporters if they just think that’s the goal?

katiejane on February 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Of all of them – which attacked Obama the most?

albill on February 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

That being said, Allah, what does Ron Paul do in an Romney/Christie or a Romney/Not Romney administration?

ted c on February 27, 2012 at 4:09 PM

It seems like there is a lot more evidence of a Hotair/Santorum conspiracy against Ron Paul than there is of a Paul/Romney alliance.

iwasbornwithit on February 27, 2012 at 3:54 PM

No kidding. Those who oppose the Constitutionalist engage in more conspiracy theories than those whom they try to mock.

Dante on February 27, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Whaaaat?! One politician might be helping another politician win the nomination? I’m shocked… /

rcpjr on February 27, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Anybody who votes for Mitt Romney because you think he is handsome, you probably wear your girlfriends jeans, OK. You probably wear your girlfriends jeans and probably order salads at McDonalds, OK. You bunch of weirdos…

apocalypse on February 27, 2012 at 4:10 PM

catmman on February 27, 2012 at 3:59 PM

I noticed that, too.
What, exactly, are Ron Paul’s supporters’ demands?
I have thought that some of the comments against Paul supporters here have been a bit harsh and sometimes insulting. But no moreso than any of the other candidates.

RedCrow on February 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM

RP is just paving the way for sonny boy Rand. He obviously thinks Mitt is going to get the nomination and has decided to align himself with the winning team. I’m not sure why any of this would seem like some unholy union. As with all politicians power and cronyism come before ideology, RP is a sellout.
Here come the the Paulbots aka liberals to defend and deny.

Buttercup on February 27, 2012 at 4:12 PM

shinty on February 27, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Seek mental-health help. For your own sake.

Dante on February 27, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Ron Paul is doing damage to the GOP.

The GOP will Ron Paul you.

SparkPlug on February 27, 2012 at 4:14 PM

This is less about being in cahoots, than hedging his bet. Paul wants a place at the table when the dust settles and being on the eventual winners side helps that cause.

Tater Salad on February 27, 2012 at 4:14 PM

apocalypse on February 27, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Okay. I laughed.
(But I don’t know what it means.)

RedCrow on February 27, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Seek mental-health help. For your own sake.

Dante on February 27, 2012 at 4:13 PM

That’s rich coming from a guy who thinks the Mossad brought down the WTC on 9/11.

catmman on February 27, 2012 at 4:17 PM

With the Paul supporters and Romney supporters joining forces to beat back the barbarians at the gate, this promises to be an illuminating thread. We have already seen the obligatory Palin hit, and the usual suspects have not yet arrived.

FirelandsO3 on February 27, 2012 at 4:18 PM

That’s rich coming from a guy who thinks the Mossad brought down the WTC on 9/11.

catmman on February 27, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Another liar. I have never said, nor have I ever believed that.

Typical, though.

Dante on February 27, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Why some people can’t understand that you can never… never, take the politics out of politics.

Even if you are Ron Paul.

If at the end of the season, Mitt Romney gets the nomination having to fend off brutal attacks from the SoCon Right, with more than a little help from his blocking back Ron Paul (yeah, I kinda chuckle at the idea of Ron Paul as fullback myself), then the Mittster is gonna wanna thank his boy. And Mitt, knowing you don’t try to take the politics out of politics, is gonna be willing to make that plum pie extra sweet.

Sweet like Cracker Jack.

JohnGalt23 on February 27, 2012 at 4:22 PM

I have thought that some of the comments against Paul supporters here have been a bit harsh and sometimes insulting. But no moreso than any of the other candidates.

RedCrow on February 27, 2012 at 4:11 PM

How about the Paultards calling active or retired service member commenters here war mongers and murderers and baby-killers?

Or the Paultards who liked to talk about the superiority of his “european whiteness”?

Thankfully, many of those commenters have been banned.

Others, like the 9/11 Truther Dante, we must continue to put up with.

catmman on February 27, 2012 at 4:22 PM

This is completely feasible and easily inferred.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/ron-paul-mitt-romney-alliance-candidates-teamed-up-to-skip-georgia-debate/2012/02/23/gIQAD77gWR_blog.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

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

It’s been reported the Romneys and the Pauls are friends.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-paul-and-romney-a-strategic-alliance-between-outsider-and-establishment/2012/01/20/gIQAf8foiQ_story.html

Despite deep differences on a range of issues, Romney and Paul became friends in 2008, the last time both ran for president. So did their wives, Ann Romney and Carol Paul….

Romney’s aides are “quietly in touch with Ron Paul,” according to a Republican adviser who is in contact with the Romney campaign and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss its internal thinking. The two campaigns have coordinated on minor things, the adviser said — even small details, such as staggering the timing of each candidate’s appearance on television the night of the New Hampshire primary for maximum effect.

INC on February 27, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Ron Paul is doing damage to the GOP.

The GOP will Ron Paul you.

SparkPlug on February 27, 2012 at 4:14 PM

If Ron Paul didn’t exist, someone in the GOP would have to invent him. If for no other reason than to keep big government closet cases like Senator Churchlady honest, reminding them of just how short of the ideal they have fallen.

JohnGalt23 on February 27, 2012 at 4:24 PM

If the consensus is that milquetoast Mitt has the best chance at beating Obama then we have no chance at beating Obama

rudee on February 27, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Paul adopts a typical anarcho-libertarian viewpoint–support Big Gov, RINO Mitt to ensure re-elect of BHO, or at worst elect a slow mo destroyer of the GOP like Willard. Then his misfit son has a shot to push himself to the top of the heap in the ensuing chaos.

vilebody on February 27, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Others, like the 9/11 Truther Dante…

catmman on February 27, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Keep lying. That’s all you have.

Dante on February 27, 2012 at 4:26 PM

The ONE person in Washington who can intelligently converse about what the average third-grader used to know about the Constitution and economics. But that fellow just happens to have the unfortunate tendency to turn into a gibbering maniac from time to time, completely discrediting himself — gosh darn the luck!

The real problem with Paul’s conspiracy theories is that he always stops them right when they get to the good part. I fully believe that the politics we see on TV are a huge Kabuki dance. But Ron Paul isn’t the guy trying to stop the show; he’s its Goddamned star performer.

logis on February 27, 2012 at 4:26 PM

To be blunt, the other candidates are not that likable. Santorum comes across as a middle management jerk. Newt is someone who likes to hear himself talk and thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room. And let’s be honest, if santorum wasn’t antiabortion, he would be a democrat.

It may also be that after meeting all of them, Paul figured out who the winner would be and is choosing to be nice to nice to someone he hopes to have influence with.

aniptofar on February 27, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Ron Paul stepping in to defend Romney at the debate last week re saying MA Catholic hospitals had no conscience clause was obvious. Paul mislabeled and misrepresented the abortifacients by telling part of the truth. As a physician he knows better, unless he’s completely out of touch with medicine–which is always a possibility.

Look at this from Steve Deace. My emphasis.

The latest prima facie evidence to support this premise is the Paul campaign’s decision to invest money running a 30-second negative ad about Rick Santorum in Michigan, despite the fact Paul has never actually campaigned there….

Which begs the question: what in the world does a crony-bailout-stimulus capitalist like Romney – who is also the father of government mandates and advocates the sort of timid targeted tax cuts the Democrats typically push – have in common with a professor emeritus of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute such as Paul?

The answer is pure Realpolitik.

Either the Paul campaign is engaged in the dumbest strategy to promote a presidential candidate since Lyndon LaRouche’s disciples handed out pamphlets in airports, or it’s time to admit the Ron Paul campaign of 2012 is really the Rand Paul campaign of 2016. Since I know Paul’s campaign people are not only not dumb, but some of the best political operatives in the business, I’m going with the Rand Paul option.

The Paul people are smart and don’t lack for resources. He’s been the best consistently funded candidate in this race other than Romney, yet they’re using those resources in a way that helps Romney more than Paul….

The Paul campaign also doesn’t believe there’s any way Romney can win a general election. I know, because some of them have actually told me this. They believe Romney (like election losers Ford, H.W. Bush, Dole, and McCain before him) is a malleable establishment candidate that won’t fire up the conservative base, and his history of firing people as a successful businessman will be successfully exploited by the class warfare tactics of the Left.

INC on February 27, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Said without a trace of irony, because I am a true conservative–a Libertarian.

Just another reason for me to like Mitt Romney more and more; he and Ron Paul are working “together!” I knew Romney was smart; but I didn’t know he was brilliant.

mountainaires on February 27, 2012 at 4:28 PM

If the ticket is Romney/RonPaul, I need days upon days of 24 hours each of convincing to even consider voting for the ticket.

vegconservative on February 27, 2012 at 4:29 PM

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.

It’s not working until he gets something.

AesopFan on February 27, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Anybody who votes for Mitt Romney because you think he is handsome, you probably wear your girlfriends jeans, OK. You probably wear your girlfriends jeans and probably order salads at McDonalds, OK. You bunch of weirdos…

apocalypse on February 27, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Okay. I laughed. (But I don’t know what it means.)

RedCrow on February 27, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Glad I could make you smile… salute

apocalypse on February 27, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Paul himself said in a TV interview it’s not an agreement, it’s just more of a strategy.

But the real question is; SO THE HELL WHAT?

Don’t you people get it?

Santorum had his worst debate and he’s used this to change the issue.

And it’s working.

fatlibertarianinokc on February 27, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Someone is eying for the VP slot….

liberal4life on February 27, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Well, with your hang-up about Viagra…the initials you use?…VP?
means Vicvasious Pecker…to you?

KOOLAID2 on February 27, 2012 at 4:33 PM

I’d like to reiterate that if there is a tacit alliance between them, it’s political genius.

KingGold on February 27, 2012 at 3:51 PM

I’ve been told by people who know a lot more about the game than anyone here other than perhaps Jazz Shaw, some of whom know both Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, that to underestimate the political Kung Fu of Ron Paul is suicide. He always has a plan, and has no problem going all-in when the time is right.

JohnGalt23 on February 27, 2012 at 4:33 PM

fatlibertarianinokc on February 27, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Steve Deace:

Either the Paul campaign is engaged in the dumbest strategy to promote a presidential candidate since Lyndon LaRouche’s disciples handed out pamphlets in airports, or it’s time to admit the Ron Paul campaign of 2012 is really the Rand Paul campaign of 2016. Since I know Paul’s campaign people are not only not dumb, but some of the best political operatives in the business, I’m going with the Rand Paul option.

The Paul people are smart and don’t lack for resources. He’s been the best consistently funded candidate in this race other than Romney, yet they’re using those resources in a way that helps Romney more than Paul….

The Paul campaign also doesn’t believe there’s any way Romney can win a general election. I know, because some of them have actually told me this. They believe Romney (like election losers Ford, H.W. Bush, Dole, and McCain before him) is a malleable establishment candidate that won’t fire up the conservative base, and his history of firing people as a successful businessman will be successfully exploited by the class warfare tactics of the Left.

INC on February 27, 2012 at 4:34 PM

It’s not working until he gets something.

AesopFan on February 27, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Fair enough. But would you admit that Mitt Romney is an adept enough politician to do what is necessary to keep Paul happy, and then keep his word in Tampa?

Romney is not an idiot, and he knows that Paul is willing to play banzai politics if push comes to shove.

JohnGalt23 on February 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Rmoney/Paul 2012. Paul supporters are in deep denial about their candidates nature. Dr. Paul is just the same as all of them. A politician. Nothing special about him. Nothing special about any of them. They will all betray you.

Bmore on February 27, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Keep lying. That’s all you have.

Dante on February 27, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Still playing the dishonesty card I see. I admire your devotion to your candidate, but Paul doesn’t have a snowballs chance in hell of winning. No amount of believing Paul has a chance will change that.

Logboy on February 27, 2012 at 4:37 PM

catmman on February 27, 2012 at 4:22 PM

I might have missed those comments (on 9/11 truthers, vet bashing, etc.). I avoid a lot of these threads ’cause the real enemy is Odumbo.

I’ll be happy when the primary is over. (Then, there’ll only be two candidates to hate-on.)

RedCrow on February 27, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Please. If you’re as ‘principled’ as you deem yourselves to be, my trifling snippets of criticism about you or Herr Doktor would hardly dissuade you from voting GOP during a Presidential election.

Unless you really are retarded, then…

I was under the impression we were trying to defeat Obama, not kiss whiny Paultards butts.

catmman on February 27, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Why don’t you read Steve Deace’s column he posted this weekend about Paul and Romney. It might answer a lot of your questions.

And what the heck does ‘principle’ have anything to do with this?

Notorious GOP on February 27, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Of all of them – which attacked Obama the most?

albill on February 27, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Palin?

Bmore on February 27, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Ron Paul is doing damage to the GOP.

The GOP will Ron Paul you.

SparkPlug on February 27, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Oh oh…Does Dire know it’s starting again?

KOOLAID2 on February 27, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Just goes to show you that you can’t trust any of them unless
you hold their feet to the fire once they are in office.

Amjean on February 27, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Rmoney/Paul 2012. Paul supporters are in deep denial about their candidates nature. Dr. Paul is just the same as all of them. A politician. Nothing special about him. Nothing special about any of them. They will all betray you.

Bmore on February 27, 2012 at 4:36 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

Comment pages: 1 2