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

It’s Newt Gingrich night on Greta. Rotation! Rick must be back on tomorrow.

Philly on March 14, 2012 at 10:01 PM

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

Romney publicly states that he is taking Paul because he thinks that the situation has become so critical that even he and many of the electorate have been convinced by Paul’s message.

They attack Obama from Paul’s fiscal and defense positions, all while using Romney’s “conversion” as an example of what everyone else should do.

If Paul can get such a concession, he needs to take it. And if you look at all the comments Paul has made about Romney, he has very carefully created the perfect environment for such a deal.

He has criticized Romney for having the same policies as the other two, except “he has a better management style and is better on taxes” – in other words, if Romney publicly proclaims that he has been convinced by Paul, Paul has everything he needs to take the deal.

Can Romney be criticized for being “convinced” by Paul and taking his positions? Why would the right criticize him? And what would the left do? Attack by saying Romney is lying and is too left-wing? Or attack by saying Romney is too right wing as evidenced by the Paul deal? Obviously the latter, as their playbook dictates.

So how do they attack? They have to claim that Romney made a cynical deal and is a hypocrite – which Romney can respond to by saying he is sincere and will prove it, all while snapping back against Obama’s hypocrisy regarding foreign policy.

It’s perfect. Obama will be paralyzed.

ebrawer on March 14, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Not as cool as Molotov-Ribbentrop, but close!

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

Wins thread.

ebrawer on March 14, 2012 at 10:04 PM

It’s perfect. Obama will be paralyzed.

ebrawer on March 14, 2012 at 10:02 PM

You’re over-thinking this. No one would be paralyzed. Romney would be utterly discredited by tying himself to a nutcase who made millions by writing racist newsletters and thinks a conspiracy of Zionist bankers led by the Rothschild family are responsible for every major war since 1812. Think Reagan/Mondale-like wipeout, only this time we’re Mondale.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 10:08 PM

It’s Newt Gingrich night on Greta. Rotation! Rick must be back on tomorrow.

Philly on March 14, 2012 at 10:01 PM

And she is all over him like stink on a monkey.

JPeterman on March 14, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Mitt-bots and Paulians unite! The gop will betray the both of you to maintain the status quo. Remember the adage that the VPOTUS was once called “worth a bucket of warm s*it “? Well the establishment will ensure that it is, if Paul has anything to do with that selection. The gop considers maintaining the country club status quo more important than the stupid base’s theory that it is to serve us, the unwashed masses.

If you are more concerned about the fate of America AND your descendants, you better start looking at the conservative party or writing in a true conservative that will take on the corruption in both parties. Your choice, your vote.

AH_C on March 14, 2012 at 10:09 PM

This IS EVIL Afoot!

williamg on March 14, 2012 at 10:10 PM

williamg on March 14, 2012 at 10:10 PM

apocalypse-is that you?
///

annoyinglittletwerp on March 14, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Ron Paul’s master plan is coming to pass, at least according to his followers, apparently.

After trashing Romney’s more conservative rivals, Paul will now attempt to make the liberal Romney the GOP candidate.

It will be interesting to see if Paul’s followers will go along for the ride…

shinty on March 14, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Most of the ronulans will play nice if their leader gives them marching orders. He doesn’t want sweater vest in there. Sweater vest wants to take your rubbers away and peep in your bedroom to make sure everything is his church’s version of “natural”.

rubberneck on March 14, 2012 at 10:17 PM

It’s Newt Gingrich night on Greta. Rotation! Rick must be back on tomorrow.

Philly on March 14, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Practice for their future jobs.

rubberneck on March 14, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Oh, and Paultards Paulians 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

Very good to hear, Archivarix. I have been worried about them. Now if my Evangelical brethren will put off Revelation for another four years, we can delouse the White House.

Jaibones on March 14, 2012 at 10:19 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.

Amen to all four of these. If Romney’s seeming weakness leads him to horse-trade these positions for a Ronulan endorsement, then bring out the good horses!

Jaibones on March 14, 2012 at 10:23 PM

I am not a Paul supporter, but would love to see him as the treasury secretary. With that said, I cannot imagine Paul supporters supporting Romney..I could be wrong, but it seems they would prefer a more conservative approach.

shar61 on March 14, 2012 at 10:25 PM

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 P

But he’s rather old, isn’t he, not to be cynical or anything of the sorts, but how much of a career as a contrarian conservative can he still be hoping to have…It’s not too wild to think that he might be thinking about retirement sometimes in the near future…my impression is that whatever deal he’s crafting with Mitt concerns more his son than himself…And I don’t mean necessarily VP, after all it can be a number of positions in a hypothetical Romney cabinet…As for endorsing Mitt, while he might, with Rand in mind, I don’t think that he (or anybody else) seriously expect that his followers will actually listen and vote for Mitt in large numbers….more likely they will stay at home, the most ‘fanatics’ of the bunch anyways…I read a lot of paulbots posts on Mitt’s FB page, and while they are generally surprisingly polite and quite civil in their comments about Mitt they were making it quite clear that they wouldn’t vote for him in the generals, the ‘sit the elections out’ seemed to be the common meme among their kind…so, what I am getting at is that Paul’s endorsement (were it to ever happen) is going to be largely symbolic but not sure that it would translate in a serious percentage of votes for Mitt….

jimver on March 14, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Jim DeMint stated several times that the Republican Party had better take Paul and his supporters seriously. Looks like Mitt is the only one taking his advice.

Two of the three conservatives in the primary are now uniting. Gingrich needs to join the party, and neutralize the stealth Democrat Rick Santorum, who is now nothing more than a stalking horse for Barack Obama.

Mr. Arkadin on March 14, 2012 at 10:31 PM

You’re over-thinking this. No one would be paralyzed. Romney would be utterly discredited by tying himself to a nutcase who made millions by writing racist newsletters and thinks a conspiracy of Zionist bankers led by the Rothschild family are responsible for every major war since 1812. Think Reagan/Mondale-like wipeout, only this time we’re Mondale.

troyriser_gopftw on March 14, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Unfortunately the libertarian movement attracts retards that actually think those things, but Paul doesn’t. Any attempt to tie those things to him is cancelled out by the whole Rev. Wright logic. They can’t attack from that angle, especially since they’re more vulnerable on it since with them it’s true.

As for racist newsletters, he didn’t write them personally, just like the owner of HotAir didn’t write your comment. He’s said that he doesn’t agree with the racist statements, and he may as well be taken at face-value. The left says far worse things, and they don’t even recant or deny them. I don’t think the left would really want to or could sustain that kind of an attack. Obama has written things just as bad in his autobiographies. The only people interested in the racist newsletter meme are pseudo-conservatives who embrace Keynesian-Monetarist economics and Wilsonian foreign policy. Almost makes you wonder why they bother running against Obama.

ebrawer on March 14, 2012 at 10:34 PM

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.

Depends what the consideration is in return. Rand Paul as VP? Hell yea. Just a speaking position at the convention? Less likely.

thirtyandseven on March 14, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Maybe Rand not Ron…anyway, Time hasn’t had a clue for many decades now…

aposematic on March 14, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Paul’s supporters abandon ship if he bows to Romney and shows any hint of compromise to his cult agenda. Not that his support translates to delegates either way.

Mitt has to know that, just like he has to know Rand’s credibility is now shot, especially if there’s some bargaining chip deal in place. You can’t whine about cronyism and then make such a public deal.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 14, 2012 at 10:41 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

I may have you confused for someone else, but you’re not an American citizen or you’re a fairly new citizen, correct? I would suggest you study the historical leaders and intellectuals of American conservatism, specifically Russel Kirk. If you do, you’ll learn Paul’s foreign policy views are those of conservatism, and perhaps you’ll see how the interventionist foreign policy is that of the profressives.

Dante on March 14, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Won’t Bernanke be stepping down in 2013?

Lawdawg86 on March 14, 2012 at 10:44 PM

you’ll see how the interventionist foreign policy is that of the profressives.

Dante on March 14, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Progressives, even.

;)

thirtyandseven on March 14, 2012 at 10:56 PM

I may have you confused for someone else, but you’re not an American citizen or you’re a fairly new citizen, correct? I would suggest you study the historical leaders and intellectuals of American conservatism, specifically Russel Kirk. If you do, you’ll learn Paul’s foreign policy views are those of conservatism, and perhaps you’ll see how the interventionist foreign policy is that of the progressives.

Dante on March 14, 2012 at 10:41 PM

You are correct in identifying my status – I’m a recent citizen – but, courtesy of Israeli Defense Forces service, I’ve got more first-hand experience with Muzzies that most libertarians, Ron Paul himself including. I’m not a neocon by any measure. I just believe that nothing short of nuclear bombardment from the orbit will ever end our conflict with them. Nothing. Go to Israel, clean up some kids’ body parts after an explosion, and then we’ll talk about it again.

Archivarix on March 14, 2012 at 11:01 PM

…this is not going to help consolidate movement conservatives, Mitt.

alwaysfiredup on March 14, 2012 at 11:04 PM

…this is not going to help consolidate movement conservatives, Mitt.

alwaysfiredup on March 14, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Why? Fiscally, Ron Paul is a wet conservative dream come alive, and
he was pro-life when St. Scrotum was still wetting his diapers. It’s his personality and foreign police that are unpalatable, but his alliance with Mittens is a golden opportunity to have the virtues without the vices.

Archivarix on March 14, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Caption of that picture of RomRon:
“See, I’m up here, and well, you’re, you’re, not.”

OkieDoc on March 14, 2012 at 11:13 PM

You are correct in identifying my status – I’m a recent citizen – but, courtesy of Israeli Defense Forces service, I’ve got more first-hand experience with Muzzies that most libertarians, Ron Paul himself including. I’m not a neocon by any measure. I just believe that nothing short of nuclear bombardment from the orbit will ever end our conflict with them. Nothing. Go to Israel, clean up some kids’ body parts after an explosion, and then we’ll talk about it again.

Archivarix on March 14, 2012 at 11:01 PM

If any Israeli PM had the balls to advocate and enforce the original two-state solution (I.E. Transjordan for the Arabs and Cisjordan for the Jews), the avantage of Ron Paul is that he wouldn’t try to stop Israel from doing it.

All these supposed “pro-israeli” US administrations and their non-nonsensical peace plans only lead to endless conflict because the Muzzies think they can still win even if they lose. The only reason Germany hasn’t invaded Poland since 1945 is the Oder–Neisse line. The Jordan river needs to be Israel’s Oder–Neisse line. And the only administration that wouldn’t stop Israel from ending the war if they had to courage to would be Ron Paul.

Remember, the US only aligned itself with Israel AFTER it won the ’67 war, proving it didn’t need the US’s help. In the meantime, the US gives more foreign aid to Israel’s enemies than Israel all while endorsing debilitating peace treaties that only encourage the Muzzies to want more using the proxies.

In the meantime, all while it practically forbids Israel from striking Iran, the US is building the Iraqi army. Is Iraq at peace with Israel yet? They invaded Israel through Jordan during nearly every Israeli-Arab war, and condemned the OSIRAK bombing. They even screwed the ’56 Israeli-UK-France alliance.

The US is Israel’s worst friend, because the Liberals who maintain the alliance in the US don’t advocate for Israeli victory, but Israeli containment.

Iran is not being contained. The Iranian regime is being supported by embargoes just like the Castro regime was. Israel is being contained. It’s nuts, but nobody seems to realize or understand it.

ebrawer on March 14, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Few revisions:

* using [their] proxies (the Arab palestinians).
* [Iraq] invaded Israel through Jordan during nearly every Israeli-Arab war, and [the US] condemned the OSIRAK bombing.

@Archivarix: would be interested in your take on my analysis, given you are former IDF.

ebrawer on March 14, 2012 at 11:24 PM

So “the Only Man Who Can Save America!”, the “only true Conservative” in the race – the good Herr Doktor – went from the truest of the true for the Conservative cause, the only principled man in the race (to hear it from the Paultards), to Mittens attack coot, to selling himself out as any true career pol would to get a leg up.

lol.

catmman on March 14, 2012 at 11:35 PM

A healthcare-mandate loving pro-choice, anti-gun liberal and an anti-Semite bigoted conspiracy-theory loving crank.

HOW COULD WE LOSE?!!11!1!!

29Victor on March 14, 2012 at 11:37 PM

This is the end result of Paul’s ‘pure’ politics?

‘Fake’ conservatives like Gingrich and Santorum are on the way out.

The liberal Romney is in.

I guess it’s easier to swallow if you look at it like Paul is the puppet master pulling Romney’s strings, tricking Mitt into adopting conservative principles. But it sure looks like its the other way around.

shinty on March 14, 2012 at 11:47 PM

@Archivarix: would be interested in your take on my analysis, given you are former IDF.

ebrawer on March 14, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Who do you think I was there, a three-star general? You might be, and likely are, better informed of American-Israeli diplomacy details than I ever was. What I am absolutely convinced of, however, is that any agreement and any peace treaty signed by any Muslim will be violated by him at the moment which said Muslim will find most convenient to him. You must understand their mentality: they don’t see any diplomatic actions as “mutually beneficial” like we do. There is no “peaceful coexistence and trade” for as long as we draw breath and don’t accept their superiority.

Archivarix on March 14, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Wow. Yet another reason not to vote for Mitt Romney. Not like I needed one; Ron Paul is a digusting bigot. Romney wants to put that fossilized piece of human debris around his neck, he’s welcome to it.

And just to be clear, I’d be cutting Santorum loose as well if he cozied up to Paul. Good grief I’m glad I’m past caring. What a disaster.

austinnelly on March 15, 2012 at 12:10 AM

I am not a Paul supporter, but would love to see him as the treasury secretary. With that said, I cannot imagine Paul supporters supporting Romney..I could be wrong, but it seems they would prefer a more conservative approach.
.
shar61 on March 14, 2012 at 10:25 PM

.
You beat me to it; that’s exactly where Ron Paul belongs.

Who knows, maybe that’s what the negotiations are about. : )

listens2glenn on March 15, 2012 at 12:17 AM

If Romney wants to win early and then get huge excitement and support in a unitfied coalition, he has to put Rand Paul on the ticket, and I doubt Rand would except.

However, if Rand Paul did accept the offer, it would be the one move Romney could make to get turnout on the right both libertarians and pro-lifers.

Ron his father is well…you know the story.

Without a Palinesque principled, full-of-convictions running mate, Romney can’t get the turnout to win.

Phoniness combined with Principles. It could work.

KirknBurker on March 15, 2012 at 12:24 AM

shinty on March 14, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Here’s the deal, bible thumping, in Santorum’s case, is not conservatism (I could get into his atrocious record but, I’ll pass). And, seriously, moon colonies are now conservative? You cannot use the government to bring about conservative ideals because government goes against conservative ideals.

As for Romney, yeah he’s been all over the place ideologically. But, he isn’t upset over women wearing skirts above their knees and he’s not moon-colony levels of crazy. It’s not enough to get me to vote for him (Paul endorsement or not) but, he’s better than the other two.

gyrmnix on March 15, 2012 at 12:41 AM

Just what we need. An obama clone making deals with a clown to get into office, where obamas policies will continue trampling us unabated.

Yay.

Wolfmoon on March 15, 2012 at 1:32 AM

Who do you think I was there, a three-star general? You might be, and likely are, better informed of American-Israeli diplomacy details than I ever was. What I am absolutely convinced of, however, is that any agreement and any peace treaty signed by any Muslim will be violated by him at the moment which said Muslim will find most convenient to him. You must understand their mentality: they don’t see any diplomatic actions as “mutually beneficial” like we do. There is no “peaceful coexistence and trade” for as long as we draw breath and don’t accept their superiority.

Archivarix on March 14, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Of course. Egypt signed the treaty because the US was offering to force Israel to give the Sinai back and massive military assistance, and Jordan signed because after losing the “west-bank” they knew that the next failed war on their part would lead to Israel taking a safe security perimeter past the Jordan river just like they had taken the Golan from Syria and the Sinai from Egypt as buffer zones. Even more importantly, Israel proved in the ’73 war that even if the Arabs could get close to winning, it would would be a kamikaze victory because Israel would use it’s nuclear arsenal to at least take them down with them. That’s why Egypt dropped it’s claims on Gaza and Jordan dropped it’s claims on the “west-bank” after ’73 and instead began the strategy of making “Palestinian” synonymous with “palestinian Arab” in order to pretend Israel is some sort of exogenous colonial power.

If either Egypt or Jordan thought they could steamroll Israel, they would drop the treaties in a heartbeat.

Israel’s problem is that it has been fighting with both hands behind it’s back since ’48 to appease the same powers who expelled every German from the countries surrounding Germany in ’45. Suddenly after ’45 and millions are relocated by the United Nations WW2 alliance, moving populations is a high war-crime. Consequently, the Arabs powers took advantage and built refugee camps for the Arab palestinians so that the war with Israel could never end unless the Arabs won.

ebrawer on March 15, 2012 at 1:34 AM

Archivarix on March 14, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Agreed. Romney isn’t my first or second choice for running in 2012, but i *would* vote for him, if the choice is between him or Obama.

But putting Paul on the ticket as a VP candidate? No way. I will stay home and play Eve:Online until the next morning, before i support that. I wont vote for Obama but i sure as heck wont support someone that turns their back on our allies *and* enemies alike.

BlaxPac on March 15, 2012 at 1:52 AM

I wonder what a Ron Paul Vice Presidential bid would do? I have a feeling no serious libertarian would vote for Romney in the fall on his own as they would just do a write in for Paul. If Romeny somehow convinced Paul to be VP…would that stir the libertarian base in favor of the GOP nominee…or would they look at it as some kind of betrayal of Libertarianism by Paul?

Lot of ifs there but food for thought I suppose.

Sammo21 on March 15, 2012 at 2:44 AM

What a joke.

Romney isn’t about to negotiate for the VP slot or a cabinet post for Ron Paul or Rand. Why on earth would he? He’s still the prohibitive favorite to win, having won a majority of delegates thus far. He’d have to be in far more desperate straits to even consider such a deal.

More likely, Paul wouldn’t even ask for that, he knows it would be a stretch. Rather, a plank or two on spending, deficits, reducing government size by department, and perhaps a nod towards a sounder monetary policy, sweetened by a decent convention spot (subject to restrictions or pre-approval of his speech) would be a huge score for him and his movement.

Adjoran on March 15, 2012 at 5:04 AM

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

How scientific.

Notorious GOP on March 15, 2012 at 6:30 AM

Really? TIME MAGAZINE?

Do any of you actually have any, you know the term, SOURCES you can ask? You’re left to go to TIME for your facts? Or is it just that any liberal source in a storm will do when you want to attack Romney?

So be it.

TIME reports that Mitt and Ron are working a deal; GOOD. I’m glad to hear it. That’s bad for Sanctimonious Santo’s prospects, and anything that stops that GODAWFUL man is a good thing for this country.

mountainaires on March 15, 2012 at 7:25 AM

You are correct in identifying my status – I’m a recent citizen – but, courtesy of Israeli Defense Forces service, I’ve got more first-hand experience with Muzzies that most libertarians, Ron Paul himself including. I’m not a neocon by any measure. I just believe that nothing short of nuclear bombardment from the orbit will ever end our conflict with them. Nothing. Go to Israel, clean up some kids’ body parts after an explosion, and then we’ll talk about it again.

Archivarix on March 14, 2012 at 11:01 PM

So when you say “our conflict,” are you referring to Israel? And I don’t know why you would tell an American to “clean up some kids’ body parts” in a foreign nation as if that should inform or dictate America’s foreign policy. Because Israel’s problems and affairs are for Israel to deal with.

So again, I would suggest you read about conservatism and read the intellectual leaders of the movement. Here’s a little of Russell Kirk to get started (and while there is much I don’t agree with him on, do take note of what he says regarding foreign policy):

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 8:33 AM

“…although presidents tend not to cede power once they have it.”

If you think Barack Obama is hell-bent on exercising power, wait till we hand the keys to the White House over to a CEO.

creeper on March 15, 2012 at 8:44 AM

So when you say “our conflict,” are you referring to Israel? And I don’t know why you would tell an American to “clean up some kids’ body parts” in a foreign nation as if that should inform or dictate America’s foreign policy. Because Israel’s problems and affairs are for Israel to deal with.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 8:33 AM

My point was, you know NOTHING about Muslims. No one who does ever suggested to negotiate with them, or to leave them alone. I don’t care for Israel being America’s friend, ally, or Christian cradle. What I do care for, however, is that once Israel is gone, the war will inevitably come here. We’re the Big Shaitan, remember?

Archivarix on March 15, 2012 at 9:57 AM

My point was, you know NOTHING about Muslims. No one who does ever suggested to negotiate with them, or to leave them alone. I don’t care for Israel being America’s friend, ally, or Christian cradle. What I do care for, however, is that once Israel is gone, the war will inevitably come here. We’re the Big Shaitan, remember?

Archivarix on March 15, 2012 at 9:57 AM

You haven no idea what I know or don’t know about Muslims, but that is entirely beside the point. The point is your calling Paul’s foreign policy idiotic, and I am trying to get you to understand that his foreign policy is that of conservatism, and I’m providing you with sources to support it.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 10:22 AM

You haven no idea what I know or don’t know about Muslims, but that is entirely beside the point. The point is your calling Paul’s foreign policy idiotic, and I am trying to get you to understand that his foreign policy is that of conservatism, and I’m providing you with sources to support it.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 10:22 AM

This thread is as good as dead already. We’ll talk next time. Meanwhile, I will read the links you gave; education never hurts.

Archivarix on March 15, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Two points.

1. Newt dropping out would help Romney. Santorum can’t amass 1144 so the larger share of delegates to him does him no good. The smaller part that goes to Mitt puts him over 1144 that much sooner.

2. Judging by the froth in this thread, the ABRs are scared witless of Paul aligning with Mitt. OK, witless is a local call for them, but those who aren’t ABR get the idea.

MJBrutus on March 15, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2