Time magazine: Discussions between Romney and Paul about a deal are “taking shape”

posted at 8:32 pm on March 14, 2012 by Allahpundit

Supposedly Team Paul is engaged in “initial discussions” with Santorum and Gingrich too, but c’mon. Newt’s chances at the nomination are only slightly higher than Paul’s are and Santorum’s hawkish social conservatism makes him a total nonstarter for libertarians. Just today, Reason editor Matt Welch published a column shivering at the thought that Team Sweater Vest might be back for another try in 2016. Romney’s the only game in town for the rEVOLution, just as he’s been since the debates started. (According to Time, one of Romney’s allies joked that Paul is their “deputy campaign manager.”)

This is the right time for a deal too. After Santorum’s southern sweep last night and with a new moment of truth looming in Illinois next week, Mitt could really use one of the few endorsements left on the landscape that would actually move votes. If Paul waits and Mitt wins Illinois and then starts to defeat Santorum consistently, his delegates become less important and his bargaining power shrinks accordingly.

Even as they tamp down rumors of a pact, Paul’s advisers concede that the friendship between Paul and Romney is the initial step toward a deal. And behind the scenes, discussions between the two campaigns — as well as initial discussions with the Santorum and Gingrich camps, according to one Paul adviser — are slowly taking shape.

An alliance could benefit both camps. Paul’s support would go a long way toward helping Romney with a bloc of young Republicans who have been turning out in huge numbers for Paul and who otherwise might stay home in November. It might also help Romney grab all of Paul’s delegates. Such an arrangement would help Paul get what a Romney ally called “an important speaking role at the convention.”…

Aides say if Paul can’t win the nomination, four legislative priorities would top the Texas Representative’s wish list: deep spending cuts that lead to a balanced budget; the restoration of civil liberties; a commitment to reclaim the legislative branch’s right to declare war, which it abdicated to the executive branch in recent decades; and reforms that shore up the U.S. monetary system, such an audit of the Federal Reserve or competing-currency legislation. The Texas Representative might also be enticed, says campaign chairman Jesse Benton, by the prospect of serving as a presidential adviser, a Cabinet position for someone in his orbit or “perhaps a vice presidency.”

Not for himself, but rather his son.

The only way Rand’s ending up on the ticket is if it looks like tea partiers might boycott November en masse, and no one believes that or else Romney wouldn’t dare say things like this. But he can certainly deliver a plum speaking gig for Paul at the convention and probably a Fed audit and maybe a commitment to the War Powers Act, although presidents tend not to cede power once they have it. (Right, Barack?) If Paul dropped out and endorsed him and if Paul’s supporters followed through by voting for Romney, that’s another 7-10 points Mitt gains instantly across the country, which is huge given the threat of Gingrich dropping out and endorsing Santorum. It’s nearly impossible for Santorum to catch Romney in delegates but if he started beating him head to head consistently, that’d be a heavy point in his favor at a brokered convention. Paul’s voters could make that scenario less likely if they followed Paul’s advice and turned out for Romney. Would they? Most of them think he’s the only man who can save America; if that man then turns around and tells them that some other guy, who’s been all over the map ideologically for the past 20 years, is the best choice for president, do they listen? Hmmmm.

Here’s Krauthammer mulling the dynamics after last night’s one-two punch. Click the image to watch.


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

“Romney/Paul 2012! Why the hell not?!” lol

ThePrez on March 14, 2012 at 8:34 PM

“Romney/Paul 2012! Why the hell not?!” lol

ThePrez on March 14, 2012 at 8:34 PM

oh yeah .. give me another reason to stay home …..

conservative tarheel on March 14, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Not as cool as Molotov-Ribbentrop, but close!

Seth Halpern on March 14, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Well, on second thought, there are some situations in which I would not be voting…

d1carter on March 14, 2012 at 8:39 PM

I don’t want EITHER Paul on that ticket!

Oink on March 14, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Odd how malleable those formerly-ironclad Paul principles can get.

JohnTant on March 14, 2012 at 8:40 PM

The odds of a Paul voter voting for Mitt is slimmer than an Ozzy Osbourne fan going to a Michael Bolton concert

davemason2k on March 14, 2012 at 8:41 PM

It would be hilarious watching all the Paulnuts trying to come to terms with the fact that their guy endorsed Romney.

Mark1971 on March 14, 2012 at 8:41 PM

In before the army of enraged RDS posters (who will conveniently forget that Newt has been bragging about “teaming up” with Santorum since all the way back in New Hampshire).

Swerve22 on March 14, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Romney/Jindal book it.

cpaulus on March 14, 2012 at 8:41 PM

The odds of a Paul voter voting for Mitt is slimmer than an Ozzy Osbourne fan going to a Michael Bolton concert

davemason2k on March 14, 2012 at 8:41 PM

I’ve been to both.

Swerve22 on March 14, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Paulnuts will stay home rather than vote for Mitt.

JPeterman on March 14, 2012 at 8:42 PM

“Supposedly”, “rumors”, anonymous sources?
Not much to base a long entry about “what happens next” in assorted imagined scenarios on.

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 8:43 PM

The odds of a Paul voter voting for Mitt is slimmer than an Ozzy Osbourne fan going to a Michael Bolton concert

davemason2k on March 14, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Have you heard Bolton’s early stuff? He used to open for metal bands.

Mark1971 on March 14, 2012 at 8:44 PM

The Squish and the Witch Doctor, the lowest common denominators in an already sorry pool of candidates.
Perfect.

RovesChins on March 14, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Puke.

Pork-Chop on March 14, 2012 at 8:46 PM

The best part about RP negotiating with Romney?

We might hear the words, through gritted teeth from Mitt Romney, that he agrees to end the Fed.

There is a price to the support of Ron Paul.

And it is delicious to think about.

ajacksonian on March 14, 2012 at 8:46 PM

I just don’t see the young Ron Paul supporters going for Romney, even with Ron Paul endorsing him. Just don’t see it.

karenhasfreedom on March 14, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Maybe it should Romney/John Carter 2012?

I mean these scnearios are getting surreal. Ron Paul backing Romneycare.

Varchild on March 14, 2012 at 8:48 PM

RP won’t endorse Mitt. Zero chance.

Lord on March 14, 2012 at 8:48 PM

It would be hilarious watching all the Paulnuts trying to come to terms with the fact that their guy endorsed Romney.

Mark1971 on March 14, 2012 at 8:41 PM

I don’t think they would turn a hair. If that was what Paul asked them to do, they would line up right behind Romney.

tom on March 14, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Let’s see if Paulnuts were principled followers or just blind cultists.

promachus on March 14, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Romney/Paul

Parker/Spitzer

idesign on March 14, 2012 at 8:50 PM

RP won’t endorse Mitt. Zero chance.
Lord on March 14, 2012 at 8:48 PM

I suspect all the candidates will offer endorsements after the nominee is chosen. But before than, especially with RP, I’d be a little skeptical of some anonymous MSM report.

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 8:53 PM

It’s Romney whether this deal goes down or not. It would help, but I think it’s done.

Philly on March 14, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Santorum’s hawkish social conservatism makes him a total nonstarter for libertarians

Am I missing something AP, or isn’t Paul about as socially conservative as Santorum?

jazz_piano on March 14, 2012 at 8:54 PM

I suspect all the candidates will offer endorsements after the nominee is chosen. But before than, especially with RP, I’d be a little skeptical of some anonymous MSM report.

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Newt will not endorse Mitt ever.

JPeterman on March 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM

jazz_piano on March 14, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Oh never mind, I didn’t see the word ‘hawkish.’ I’ll go back to sleep now.

jazz_piano on March 14, 2012 at 8:56 PM

aside from some of Ron P strident antiwar rhetoric, i find him quite good on the stump…he actually seems like an honest man. (yeah, i know he’s a little nuts on the foreign side)

but if Ron explained things very carefully to the paulnuts, he’d be able to influence 50 percent i bet. Santorum has to be a total non-starter for the paul.bots. So mitt is their best shot.

Obviously, a fair amount of ron’s support comes from the Left…and they’ll vote Obama anyway

And Rand Paul as VP…a little early…and if we’re going early why not rubio. rubio has the personality to appear presidential

Rand Paul could be more like a Dan Quayle…get’s in trouble over nothing (of course Bush/Quayle won)

r keller on March 14, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Paulnuts will stay home rather than vote for Mitt.

JPeterman on March 14, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Ronbots will do as they are told.

If they had their own will and thoughts, they wouldn’t be Ronbots.

Rebar on March 14, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Not for himself, but rather his son.

I won’t say you heard it from me first, and I don’t remember where I heard it. But I have been saying for weeks, a Romney-Rand Paul ticket would soothe many of the wounds to my soul that this primary has inflicted.

Let it be so.

OK…Rubio would be fine, too.

Jaibones on March 14, 2012 at 8:59 PM

“Romney/Paul 2012! Why the hell not?!” lol
ThePrez on March 14, 2012 at 8:34 PM

I’m recalling a 1980 Dan Rather broadcast about how Reagan had cut a deal for Ford to serve as co-President (as Reagan’s VP) and that George HW Bush was really sick about not being chosen. Don’t know if Dan ever corrected that report. “Not true, but otherwise accurate”.

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Aides say if Paul can’t win the nomination, four legislative priorities would top the Texas Representative’s wish list: deep spending cuts that lead to a balanced budget; the restoration of civil liberties; a commitment to reclaim the legislative branch’s right to declare war, which it abdicated to the executive branch in recent decades; and reforms that shore up the U.S. monetary system, such an audit of the Federal Reserve or competing-currency legislation.

So basically, a Paul endorsement of Romney would basically entail a complete remodeling of Mitt’s campaign?

Don’t get me wrong. If there were some way to hold Romney to this kind of a deal, I’d support him in a heartbeat. Two problematic elements of this deal, however, are its essential unenforceability and its contradiction of Romney’s record and his present campaign platform.

Besides that, surely Rep. Paul knows this kind of a deal would forever end his career as a contrarian conservative. He would have virtually no credibility with the people who fund his organization.

Nom de Boom on March 14, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Newt will not endorse Mitt ever.
JPeterman on March 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM

You must be new to Presidential politics.

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 9:01 PM

So when Santorum said this was in the works, everyone scoffed. Now it is news. Go figure.

txmomof6 on March 14, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Paul’s voters could make that scenario less likely if they followed Paul’s advice and turned out for Romney. Would they?

Rhetorical question I assume…you’d have to be really delusional to think the Paulists are going anywhere when their guy drops out, other than back into their parents basement to play video games and annoy the rest of us on this site. Hell, they won’t even turn out for Paul, who was supposed to clean up in the caucus states…turns out he failed there too.

It’s nearly impossible for Santorum to catch Romney in delegates but…

Get with the plan…he doesn’t have to catch him, just get enough to deny him a first ballot nomination…so much for Mr. Inevitable.

ironmarshal on March 14, 2012 at 9:01 PM

You know, let me amend my previous comment. It’s not so much that Romney’s campaign contradicts most of those 4 elements of a deal. It’s that he really hasn’t even talked about 3 out of the 4. When Paul talks about restoring civil liberties, he is not primarily speaking of the contraception debate.

Nom de Boom on March 14, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Newt will not endorse Mitt ever.

JPeterman on March 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM

You don’t say!

rubberneck on March 14, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Paulnuts will stay home rather than vote for Mitt.

JPeterman on March 14, 2012 at 8:42 PM

There seems to be a common misconception around here that there will only be an R or a D on the ballots. I assure you, there will be other choices.

Dante on March 14, 2012 at 9:03 PM

R and a D, rather.

Dante on March 14, 2012 at 9:03 PM

You must be new to Presidential politics.

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 9:01 PM

I am, this will be my 2nd presidential election since becoming a citizen. But after watching Newt the past couple of months and especially his interview with Brett Baier last night, Newt’s ego won’t allow it. He’s not a team player.

JPeterman on March 14, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Fer cryin’ out loud – it’s Ricky Sweater Vest FTW. And on the off chance he can’t get 1144 before the convention, it’s the other RP on the convention floor.

So it’s time for the Mittens boyz and grrls to get back on their barstools.

platypus on March 14, 2012 at 9:05 PM

For heavans sake…TIME magazine! Come on folks! It’s the only toilet paper sold in America with a four color process…and squares of paper with a thicker than tissue glossy finish!

KOOLAID2 on March 14, 2012 at 9:06 PM

He’s not a team player.

JPeterman on March 14, 2012 at 9:04 PM

And that goes double for the Ronulans.

platypus on March 14, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Romney/Rand.

They’ll save the land.

profitsbeard on March 14, 2012 at 9:09 PM

And that goes double for the Ronulans.

platypus on March 14, 2012 at 9:07 PM

We’re Team Constitution, not Team Republican.

It’s unfortunate many would choose party over the Constitution.

Dante on March 14, 2012 at 9:10 PM

And that goes double for the Ronulans.

platypus on March 14, 2012 at 9:07 PM

As witnessed by some in this thread.

JPeterman on March 14, 2012 at 9:11 PM

After the first ballot many of the delegates are no longer bound, then more, then more. This is initial talks.

LevStrauss on March 14, 2012 at 9:11 PM

You can love him, or you can hate him. But this Romney guy is a strategic thinker. And I kind of like that quality in a president.

rogaineguy on March 14, 2012 at 9:11 PM

You must be new to Presidential politics.
whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 9:01 PM

I am, this will be my 2nd presidential election since becoming a citizen. But after watching Newt the past couple of months and especially his interview with Brett Baier last night, Newt’s ego won’t allow it. He’s not a team player.
JPeterman on March 14, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Ah, I was joking – but you are new, lol.

You could be correct in that Newt’s ego might get in the way, but he would become an instant persona non grata in the Republican party and find himself in the same boat as Arlen Specter. Historically, the candidates rally around a party’s nominee.

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Me and JohnTheLibertarian told everyone here two months ago this was coming.

Only Rubio might be able to deliver more people than Rand.

See – that’s how this works. Ron can’t tell his supporters “go vote Mitt, trust me. I’m speaking at the convention”. It has to be an incorporation of Paul into his campaign.

Put Ron and Rand on stage with Mitt, and it’s ovah.

budfox on March 14, 2012 at 9:13 PM

You know who’ll be back in 2016? Huntsman. And you’ll all learn to like it.

Too bad you tools ran him out of town this time, eh? Not looking so bad now, eh? Didn’t think so.

SuperBunny on March 14, 2012 at 9:13 PM

So the guy who thinks we are no better then the Taliban is going to make sure we get the guy who gave us Obamacare v1.0.

How F****ed are we?

18-1 on March 14, 2012 at 9:14 PM

I don’t know it sure gets the fired up conservative young to the polls against the current path in WDC. Makes Mitt look far more conservative and tempers Paul concerning his foreign policy. At first glance I kind of like the idea at face value.

jukin3 on March 14, 2012 at 9:14 PM

A deal between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Let me mull this one over for a minute. If this deal happens, does this mean we Romney supporters must now believe, as Ron Paul does, that the Illuminati are conducting secret spider-goat DNA hybridization experiments? How about mind control via water fluoridation? And what about that evil cabal of Zionist bankers seeking to make of themselves our genetically and technologically enhanced, near-immortal overlords? Must we all now subscribe to Ron Paul’s racist newsletters, stock up on gold and bullets, and await the inevitable end?

No thanks. I like my steak medium rare and my political party sane. This is off the rails. Rand Paul shows up on the GOP ticket as part of a backroom deal between his crazy old man and Mitt Romney and I’m outta here.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Two problematic elements of this deal, however, are its essential unenforceability and its contradiction of Romney’s record and his present campaign platform.

We lose every ounce of our influence the moment a President is elected. And that is why we should be judging our candidate not on the ideas in his speeches in 2012, but on his record.

Besides that, surely Rep. Paul knows this kind of a deal would forever end his career as a contrarian conservative. He would have virtually no credibility with the people who fund his organization.

Ron’s old. This is his last hurrah.

I just hope that however he ends this, he doesn’t take down Rand with him.

18-1 on March 14, 2012 at 9:18 PM

As unlikely as it is, a Romney/Paul alliance pisses off all the right people – social cons and neo cons. And if Paul can win concessions from Romney for the libertarian movement then he has done all he can to serve the libertarian cause. He can’t make the GOP base vote for him. But he sure as hell can influence Washington.

keep the change on March 14, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Rand Paul shows up on the GOP ticket as part of a backroom deal between his crazy old man and Mitt Romney and I’m outta here.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Door. Ass. Watch Out.

budfox on March 14, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Let’s see if Paulnuts were principled followers or just blind cultists.

promachus on March 14, 2012 at 8:50 PM

The only way his principles would be compromised is if Paul endorsed Mitt and that ain’t happening.

Notorious GOP on March 14, 2012 at 9:19 PM

I will not vote for ANY ticket that has Luap Nor on it!!!

annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 9:19 PM

. This is off the rails. Rand Paul shows up on the GOP ticket as part of a backroom deal between his crazy old man and Mitt Romney and I’m outta here.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Where ya going?

JPeterman on March 14, 2012 at 9:20 PM

keep the change on March 14, 2012 at 9:18 PM

For Da Win

budfox on March 14, 2012 at 9:20 PM

JUST STOP! Ron isn’t endorsing Mitt! And even if he did (which he’s not) hardly any of us are voting for Mitt! Mitt’s probably the closest to the complete opposite compared to Newt/Santo in the field.

Please, just stop this endorsing or principles stuff.

Notorious GOP on March 14, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Ron Paul is a lying bastard. Makes since he allied with another notorious liar.

eva3071 on March 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 9:15 PM

I can’t tell you the number of Dem family members I’ve talked to who have this vague notion of Ron Paul being the “good kind of Republican” (as opposed to those crrrrazeee Tea Party people). I’m not going to disabuse them of that by warning them about his calls to shrink government, but it really is amusing to hear them sing his praises.

A general election ad against him would pretty much sound like what you just wrote, and so would the public’s response.

Nom de Boom on March 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Romney/Jindal book it.

cpaulus on March 14, 2012 at 8:41 PM

THIS!^^^

annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 9:22 PM

So the guy who thinks we are no better then the Taliban is going to make sure we get the guy who gave us Obamacare v1.0.

How F****ed are we?

18-1 on March 14, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Well, the GOP still glorifies the guy who packed on massive debt in the 80′s.

that’s how F****ed we are.

Notorious GOP on March 14, 2012 at 9:23 PM

There seems to be a common misconception around here that there will only be an R or a D on the ballots. I assure you, there will be other choices.

Dante on March 14, 2012 at 9:03 PM

O’RELY?

ElectricPhase on March 14, 2012 at 9:23 PM

As unlikely as it is, a Romney/Paul alliance pisses off all the right people – social cons and neo cons. And if Paul can win concessions from Romney for the libertarian movement then he has done all he can to serve the libertarian cause. He can’t make the GOP base vote for him. But he sure as hell can influence Washington.

keep the change on March 14, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Are whackjob, Bircher-derived conspiracy theories now part of the libertarian package? I don’t recall Ed Clark, perennial Libertarian Party candidate for president, going on about evil Zionist bankers or Bildersberger plots to take over the world. I disagreed with many aspects of the Libertarian Party platform over the decades, but never thought they were bigots or conspiratorial nutcases as Ron Paul and many of his Prison Planet- and Stormfront-frequenting followers seem to be.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Paulnuts will stay home rather than vote for Mitt.
JPeterman on March 14, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Proudly!!! I may love Paul’s stand on the issues, but I still think for myself. No way I’m voting for a Mormon wirh no core belief in anything!!! Call me a bigot, anyone can feel free to ask me if I care.

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on March 14, 2012 at 9:27 PM

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 9:24 PM

What he said.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Ron Paul as head of the fed.

talkingpoints on March 14, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on March 14, 2012 at 9:27 PM

I’ll vote for a Mormon-but this apostate Jooo-girl will never vote for Herr Doktor Paul.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Where ya going?

JPeterman on March 14, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Don’t know. But I swear to God this Paul-Romney deal goes through I’ll start looking for alternatives. The thought of being an independent holds no appeal at all. I’ve been a straight-ticket Republican for decades now. I’d feel like a man without a country.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Mitt’s probably the closest to the complete opposite compared to Newt/Santo in the field.

Notorious GOP on March 14, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Apparently, Paul may disagree with you. I trust his opinion more.

jan3 on March 14, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Ok, so far such rumors have come from Think Progress and Time Magazine. Both are extreme left wing organizations that would be just about the last people I would expect to be privy to “secret” discussions between Republican candidates.

I would say that it IS possible that Paul could be in discussions to bow out and endorse Romney.

Any talk of a Paul/Romney alliance is likely Democrat propaganda designed to further damage Romney … which would play well into Hot Air’s strategy which appears to be to do whatever it can do to sabotage the Republican party and get Obama re-elected.

It may not be intentional, but that is exactly what the site is doing.

crosspatch on March 14, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Nothing like the bedrock foundation of “supposedly,” “may,” “could,” and “might”. Oh, throw in some unnamed sources, too.

Solid, solid stuff.

Dante on March 14, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Mitt’s probably the closest to the complete opposite compared to Newt/Santo in the field.

Mitt Romney has never advanced one conservative goal in his life.

Hell, he can’t even manage to fake being a “severe” conservative now when everything is on the line.

18-1 on March 14, 2012 at 9:34 PM

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 9:24 PM

You’re deranged. I don’t recall Ron Paul going on about “evil zionist bankers”, either. People like you have a nazi-obsession. You see nazis around every corner, and in everyone you don’t like you see a nazi underneath. That’s a hardcore psychiatric condition.

keep the change on March 14, 2012 at 9:35 PM

I’ll vote for a Mormon-but this apostate Jooo-girl will never vote for Herr Doktor Paul.
annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 9:29 PM

How about Rand?

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Nothing like the bedrock foundation of “supposedly,” “may,” “could,” and “might”. Oh, throw in some unnamed sources, too.
Solid, solid stuff.
Dante on March 14, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Allegedly so!

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Paulians will accept Mitt for VP, nothing less.

slickwillie2001 on March 14, 2012 at 9:37 PM

How about Rand?

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 9:35 PM

I’d consider it.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 9:38 PM

I like Krauthammer’s analysis of Romney: “I have the math; elect me!!”

Bitter Clinger on March 14, 2012 at 9:39 PM

I’ve been a straight-ticket Republican for decades now. I’d feel like a man without a country.

If you’d asked me after the passage of Obamacare who the one Republican we could not pick as our standard bearer would be, it would obviously be Romney.

And yet somehow we are about to nominate the architect of Obamacare v1.0, who to this day claims health care mandates are fundamentally good, conservative policy.

18-1 on March 14, 2012 at 9:40 PM

How about Rand?

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Rand Paul for president sounds pretty good right now.

18-1 on March 14, 2012 at 9:40 PM

There seems to be a common misconception around here that there will only be an R or a D on the ballots. I assure you, there will be other choices.

Dante on March 14, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Yeah, and they collectively will pull .0000000000001 percent of the votes.

Bitter Clinger on March 14, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Mitt Romney has never advanced one conservative goal in his life.

Hell, he can’t even manage to fake being a “severe” conservative now when everything is on the line.

18-1 on March 14, 2012 at 9:34 PM

of course, that’s why he’s probably the complete opposite of Ron compared to the other 2.

Notorious GOP on March 14, 2012 at 9:42 PM

How about Rand?
whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 9:35 PM

I’d consider it.
annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Just curious, I’m not a fanboi of either Paul. (Pauls? Paulses? Eh, whatever.)

whatcat on March 14, 2012 at 9:42 PM

If you’d asked me after the passage of Obamacare who the one Republican we could not pick as our standard bearer would be, it would obviously be Romney.

And yet somehow we are about to nominate the architect of Obamacare v1.0, who to this day claims health care mandates are fundamentally good, conservative policy.

18-1 on March 14, 2012 at 9:40 PM

I’ll never forget reading a USA Today editorial Romney wrote in July 2009 (just as the health care debate was starting to ramp up)defending RomneyCare vigourously while an opposing editorial pointed out what a colossal f**k-up it was. I said, “No way Romney gets the GOP nod with this”. And here we are…..alas

Bitter Clinger on March 14, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Let’s see if Paulnuts were principled followers or just blind cultists.

promachus on March 14, 2012 at 8:50 PM

THIS!!!

Bitter Clinger on March 14, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Those 4 commitments AND the VP slot for Paul would be a fair bargain. Anything less is worthless.

What people don’t realize is that Paul’s delegate strategy makes him way more powerful than the straw polls show – he’s actually 2nd place. The reason Romney needs Paul is to close the deal ASAP. Adding Paul makes it impossible for Santorum or Newt unless they join with Newt as VP – in which case Romney-Paul still crushes them.

The Romney-Paul ticket would crush Obama by attacking him from every angle possible.

ebrawer on March 14, 2012 at 9:48 PM

The Romney-Paul ticket would crush Obama by attacking him from every angle possible.

Obamacare? Nope
Judges? Nope
Spending? Nope
WoT? Nope

Romney cedes almost every issue the public is with the conservatives on to Obama. Adding in Ron Paul brings that to every issue.

18-1 on March 14, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Can you say, “Secretary of Treasury, Paul?”

blink on March 14, 2012 at 9:50 PM

No.
He doesn’t belong in ANY GOP administration in ANY capacity.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Those 4 commitments AND the VP slot for Paul would be a fair bargain. Anything less is worthless.

He would probably get the four commitments. Heck, pretty much any mainstream conservative can get on board with those anyway. But Ron Paul will never get a VP slot. Which is fine with him, because he wouldn’t want it anyway. (It’s open secret that he considers himself too old for the job anyway.) Rand Paul? Maybe. But probably something a little less. Definitely a position of influence.

Esoteric on March 14, 2012 at 9:54 PM

18-1 on March 14, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Jindal will bring conservative cred= he’s a governor-and Jindal has never-nor will he ever get-gotten endorsed by Don Black, David Duke, Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura, the IHR etc.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 9:55 PM

The odds of a Paul voter voting for Mitt is slimmer than an Ozzy Osbourne fan going to a Michael Bolton concert

davemason2k on March 14, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Have you heard Bolton’s early stuff? He used to open for metal bands.

Mark1971 on March 14, 2012 at 8:44 PM

John Bolton? That would be something.

Philly on March 14, 2012 at 9:57 PM

You guys are so completely brainless, it’s hilarious. Most eagerly agree that Ron Paul’s policies are conservative wet dream but his idiotic foreign policy and his questionable personality make him – how to put it mildly – unacceptable. Here is a stellar, fate-kissed chance to have Ron Paul fiscal policies implemented, without having his “we can be friends with Iran” drivel and without the old loon himself on the ticket. For that alone, I would support Romney, Gingrich, or even Santorum.

Archivarix on March 14, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Oh, and Paultards will vote for Romney. I polled my daughter’s libertarian friends and all of them said they have no problem with it.

Archivarix on March 14, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2