There’s an interesting story up on The Daily Caller website which explores the possibility that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has cut some sort of a backroom deal with U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).
Outlandish speculation? That’s what we thought at first … although in our defense we’re avowed “Paul-tards,” as the GOP establishment likes to refer to Ron Paul supporters.
Anyway …
“It is interesting that (Paul) has never really attacked (Romney), yet he has frequently attacked more conservative candidates at just the moment they were beginning to pose a threat to Romney,” reporter Matt K. Lewis notes.
Well … that’s not entirely true. Paul has been harshly critical of each one of his GOP rivals – including an ad bashing all three of them just days before the South Carolina GOP presidential primary. We suppose there may be a question of timing and emphasis, though, which is why for the purpose of this article we included Lewis’ quote as “Exhibit A.”
Exhibit B?
A report from a Kentucky radio station in which U.S. Sen. Rand Paul – Ron’s son – said that “it would be an honor” to be considered as a possible Romney vice presidential candidate.
Wait … what?
Sadly, he didn’t stutter …
Assuming that some Romney-Paul deal has been struck we wholeheartedly support it … well, as long as somebody promises to put a bullet through Romney’s head the second after he’s taken the oath of office.
(Note to Romney’s Secret Service detail … we’re kidding).
Seriously, though … such a corrupt bargain would be worse than awful if it came to pass. In fact it would be nothing short of cataclysmic.
This website enthusiastically endorsed Ron Paul’s candidacy for the very simple reason that he’s not a sellout (like practically every other politician in Washington). He has a lengthy record of walking the walk on the fiscal and libertarian issues that matter most to us, and he’s the only candidate in the 2012 race who has proposed anything resembling the sort of spending cuts required to restore some semblance of fiscal sanity to our out-of-control federal government.
Paul wouldn’t sacrifice decades worth of credibility on an endorsement of Romney (or the withhold legitimate criticism of the pandering flip-flopper), would he? And his son – a genuine “rising star” within the limited government movement – wouldn’t betray all those supporters to play second fiddle to Romney, would he?
Let’s hope not …
If such a deal does go down, though, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson’s candidacy (Google it, he exists) would likely receive a huge influx of support.
Pic: via Daylife
***
By ? February 22, 2012 at 11:23 pm
Rand Paul is significantlyn different from his father in key areas, especially foreign policy.
I personally happen to believe Rand likes power a little too much but his old man doesn’t air differences between him and his son publicly…and the differences in foreign policy and the role of gov’t is a bigger canyon between them then most people think.
The DC article is pure speculation and even further we know that any mention of Ron Paul on prominent internet sites gets huge hits….
I think DC is just doing the MSM version of creating a fire where there’s none for ratings(or hits).
Gary Johnson’s the real sellout btw, he’ll play ball with the power brokers whenever it comes down to the brass tacks.
Don’t lose faith in Ron Paul just because his son is flakey and not as mentally rigourous as the old man. The last thing Libertarians needs is the political equivalent of the Bushs/Clintons/Kennedy’s etc. et al….
It’s just cult of personality crap.
By Anonymous February 22, 2012 at 11:26 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/us/politics/mitt-romney-and-ron-paul-friendly-amid-the-rivalry.html
Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have a warm personal relationship.
By TontoBubbaGoldstein February 22, 2012 at 11:55 pm
I’ve been a Ron Paul supporter since the 1980s. ( Before it was cool and hip.) Tell me again why having Rand Paul as the GOP VP nominee is a BAD thing. Compare it to all other (realistic) scenarios.
By ? February 23, 2012 at 8:07 am
I suppose you being a Ron Paul supporter from the 80′s make your opinion more credible than anyone else’s, right?
Aside from that “point”, let’s examine the one area where Rand differs significantly from his father:
Rand’s willingness to do a “pre-emptive strike” on Iran, who despite the MSM crowing about nuclear weapon ambitions (a la Iraq WMD-that never existed) has never stated their intention to do so ASIDE FROM ALLOWING THE IAEA in for inspections is a full member of said organization participating in the non-proliferation treaty.
Even more disturbing is the rhetoric involving the phrasology that “We will wipe Israel off the map” which is in huge contention by itself(see wiki) yet the MSM is happy to repeat like it’s fact over and over again…
It’s Iraq: Part Deux
…and Rand’s all gung ho about it. Much the detriment of already bankrupt from multiple undeclared wars nation, aside from the major implications surrounding Rand’s viewpoint obviously that the Constitution is more of a “guidline” rather than “law”(ie. undeclared wars).
There’s a reason Neocons find him “palatable”.
So that’s one major point, how many more would you like?
By ? February 23, 2012 at 8:09 am
edit: “much to the detriment of our already bankrupt nation”
My brain somehow took what was in my head and rearranged the words in a non-sensical fashion…lol
By TontoBubbaGoldstein February 23, 2012 at 9:50 am
?, Please show me where Rand Paul supports a US preemptive strike against Iran? IMHO, the apple didn’t fall far from the tree. The “since the 1980s” thing was just a gentle jab at Johnny come lately FITS.
By ? February 23, 2012 at 10:51 am
thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3625-paul-wont-rule-out-preemptive-strike-on-iran
By barneyfife February 24, 2012 at 6:56 am
It’s still not cool or hip to support Ron Paul. He is an absolute idiot.
By Robert February 23, 2012 at 6:48 am
Kidding or not, don’t make threats against the President or a Presidential candidate.
By jimlewis,owb February 23, 2012 at 7:36 am
willie, I do believe the boys and girls driving them big black Suburbans will be knocking on your door soon, real soon.
By ? February 23, 2012 at 8:18 am
and this is the state of things today mentally for good part of our population…you can’t even bash politicians for the fear of men in black suits coming to bash your skull in and haul you away.
Alan Moore/Orwell/Huxley were all damn prophets sadly, not story tellers.
In fact, if you look at all the major issues “politically” today they are all FEAR based:
Fear of Iran. Fear of Terrorism. Fear of financial collapse. Fear of the loss of hegemony.
It goes on and on….what an effective way to control cowards…which so many of us are now.
By Billy-Bob February 23, 2012 at 8:57 am
GOP backroom deals, corruption?? Wash your mouth out!!
By Bogart February 23, 2012 at 9:12 am
” Bullet in Romney’s head”……Fits,fail.
By TJ February 23, 2012 at 9:53 pm
I’m with you Bogie- c’mon, Will, you’re a better writer than this…
By snodgrass February 23, 2012 at 9:44 am
I don’t see anything conspiratorial going on here, and that’s saying a lot given my penchant for natural skepticism. Ron Paul places a lot of stock in gentlemanly behavior. To provide some context to this issue, bear in mind that this is the “second” round for Paul and Romney. They shared the stage in the last election, too. Back then, Romney gleefully joined in with all the others who were smirking and laughing at Dr. Paul.
While the past candidates are no longer around, Romney is. And he’s learned that Ron Paul is not as flakey as he once believed him to be. He’s also learned that a lot of voters are in agreement with RP. I suspect that Romney views RP much differently these days. They’ve developed a camaraderie and it shows through in their campaigns. It’s harder to attack an ally than it is to attack an enemy.
I do believe that Romney’s campaign is being extra cautious in their treatment of RP. No GOP nominee can beat Obama without Ron Paul’s supporters. In fact, unless that nominee happens to “be” Ron Paul, I’m doubtful that the GOP can beat Obama at all, even with Rand Paul as the VP on the ticket.
If Ron Paul, or someone very much like him, isn’t the next President, the nation as we know it will be history anyway.
By JOHN February 23, 2012 at 10:15 am
i’ve got an idea. when RON PAUL becomes president…mitt romney can go get his coffee….how’s that for an alliance?
By ? February 23, 2012 at 10:49 am
+1000!
By rwwllms February 23, 2012 at 10:27 am
Stop and ask yourselves this: would you rather Romney make Nikki his VP?
Having a Paul as VP doesn’t look so bad now does it?
By ? February 23, 2012 at 10:54 am
VP is close to a worthless/meaningless position.
It’s only important if a President meets his demise.
By Godslayer February 23, 2012 at 12:16 pm
I’m not claiming to be the author of this, but it’s great:
New definitions for 2012 politics
Santorumonious – The conviction that a holier than thou belief system qualifies one to dictate to everyone else how to live their private lives. Similar to being sanctimonious, except that it contains an extra layer of hypocrisy in which the believer decries governmental intrusion, while at the same time demanding everyone else live according to their standards. Subject uses a sense of victimization to justify all of their most outlandish expression of ideals (see Gingrichamania).
Romnebotism – Possession of a near human like appearance, but lacking the ability to completely emulate human qualities so that real people can perceive the difference. This condition renders the afflicted incapable of human emotions or empathy, instead causing subject to equate self-interest, greed and thirst for power with having had true human experiences. In more extreme cases the subject is known to confuse businesses for people, lack understanding of others not being incredibly wealthy and thinking their love of cars means caring about other people. This condition is considered incurable and only kept in check by returning to private industry and being allowed to fire other people at will.
Gingrichamania – A highly dangerous mental condition characterized by unrealistic self aggrandizement, bizarre planning and frequent angry outbursts against anyone unfortunate enough to question such behavior. This condition is not dangerous to the subject themselves, only to supporters, reporters, former colleagues and any seducible women unable to hide quickly enough. The subject uses a cloak of victimization to excuse all such behavior and to draw other unsuspecting listeners into its web of rhetoric, by convincing them they are also victims of liberal bias and elitism (see Santorumonious). Ignoring the subject is the only known method of defense.
Paulookaville – A non-existent place in a non-exist time that hearkens back to a bygone era of self-reliance, golden standards and freely available drugs. This time and space is thought to be a crime and worry free utopia, but has never existed in human history, except in John Wayne movies directed by Frank Capra.
Bachmanaracts – The blurry vision that all people that oppose your beliefs are gay, yet the inability to recognize one’s own spouse as being gay. This condition is characterized by the firm belief that God commands the subject to seek public recognition and their leadership (see Santorumonious).
Perrywinkle – A hybrid growth of every negative stereotype of Texans rolled into one. It looks impressive in its native environment but is incapable of survival outside of the Lone Star State.
Christietosis – A continuous angry and belligerent response to all outside stimulus. Caused by the resentment that no matter what, they are destine to be the governor of New Jersey as their life’s greatest accomplishment, while feeling they could do better, but knowing they aren’t qualified for even that.
Palinatude – Hey, pay attention to me. I’m still out here. I’m still relevant. Really, I am. You know you still want to hear what I’ll say next. Listen, come on, listen to me. Ya-betch-ya.
By ? February 23, 2012 at 12:45 pm
“This time and space is thought to be a crime and worry free utopia”
Ya know, the author contradicted Paulookaville himself by on one hand referencing the days of old…but then kinda plying things with the idea that it “never existed” even though it did and he simply weights the idea that Paulists are “utopian”…which they aren’t…with this notion that when the gold standard was in effect and drugs not regulated there wasn’t any crime, problems, etc. et al
It’s a nice soundbyte for a comedy routine but is hardly based on fact.
By Common Sense February 23, 2012 at 1:25 pm
hysterical
Pingback: Ron Paul
By Recovering Lobbyist February 23, 2012 at 4:13 pm
This just in: blogger Will Folks taken into custody for questioning by Federal agents after he encourages his readers to kill a candidate for President of the United States.
Just kidding.
By big T's electric kool aid acid test February 23, 2012 at 5:57 pm
for claiming to support ron paul or even follow his candidacy, you clearly arent even doing your basic homework on the tactical aspect of this move. ron paul and his spokespeople have OPENLY ADMITTED their strategy in regards to both mitt romney and the other candidates. they have overtly expressed their belief that romney is their chief opponent, that they can outlast the chaff candidates like perry, bachm,ann, cain and trump LOL -remember that lineup of hapless idiots?- all the while picking up delegates, and then be final 2 against romney going into a brokered convention, where he’ll be the only conservative option. HAVE YOU NOT HEARD HIM OPENLY STATE THIS STRATEGY PLAINLY AND CLEARLY, because i have, and its not my job to report on politics, i dont have a blog or a website, so where the fuck have you been? LOL are you this uniformed or are you trying to inject conspiracy and smear ron paul as a collaborator stooge of romney? your “endorsement” is really worth YOUR weight in lard. maybe ron paul should dump the gold standard- since the south carolinians hate the golden rule so much anyway- and adopt the fits LArd (ass) standard LOL!
By political hack February 23, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Let’s not knock South Carolina too much on wanting to piss in the sandbox. We were once a noble and gentlemanly State, who believed in state sovereignty, state’s rights, and even had the audacity to follow through on the Virginia and Kentucky Resolution by an act of Secession. All our woes can be traced to Lincoln and his minion Sherman, Reconstruction, and God damn carpetbaggers. The last great populist hope was Pitchfork Ben, and Strom was an OG, but it is clear that the politicians we have produced of late are a bunch of bootlicking yellow bellies.
By This just in... February 24, 2012 at 12:43 pm
Santorum Makes Campaign Swing Through Seventeenth Century
Blasts Contraception, Electricity, Soap
THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY (The Borowitz Report) – In an effort to underscore his core beliefs leading up to this Tuesday night’s primary contests, former Sen. Rick Santorum made a campaign swing through the Seventeenth Century today.
At the first stop of his ambitious journey, Mr. Santorum restated his reason for seeking the White House: “I am running for President today because the position of Spanish Inquisitor is no longer available.”
The former Pennsylvania Senator served up red meat to his seventeenth-century supporters, telling them, “Since we all agree that contraception is a bad idea, it’s time to take a harder look at electricity and soap.”
Mr. Santorum, who said that in his first day in office he would repeal the Age of Enlightenment, stressed that he had home-schooled all seven of his children: “That means there are at least eight people in this country who don’t understand evolution.”
In a lighter moment, Sen. Santorum told his audience what he said was his favorite joke: “A Kenyan, a Muslim and a socialist walk into a bar. And then he makes everyone get an abortion.”
Elsewhere on the campaign trail, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich scored points with this comment on education: “We should leave no child behind, only wives.”
By ? February 24, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Haha! Truly a good one.
How come you don’t apply your skills to Obama as well?