PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Romney and Paul good buddies?


Taco John
02-03-2012, 01:34 AM
For Romney and Paul, a strategic alliance between establishment and outsider

By Amy Gardner, Published: February 1

RENO, NEV. ó The remaining candidates in the winnowed Republican presidential field are attacking one another with abandon, each day bringing fresh headlines of accusations and outrage.

But Mitt Romney and Ron Paul havenít laid a hand on each other.

They never do.

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. The former Massachusetts governor compliments the Texas congressman during debates, praising Paulís religious faith during the last one, in Jacksonville, Fla. Immediately afterward, as is often the case, the Pauls and the Romneys gravitated toward one another to say hello.

More... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-paul-and-romney-a-strategic-alliance-between-outsider-and-establishment/2012/01/20/gIQAf8foiQ_story.html?hpid=z1)

big nasty kcnut
02-03-2012, 01:50 AM
Oh great robotman and captain Crazy. Where Sarah Palin to run and win this shit?

Taco John
02-03-2012, 01:57 AM
Oh great robotman and captain Crazy. Where Sarah Palin to run and win this shit?

It's the dude!

"New blog post!" Amirite?

Taco John
02-03-2012, 02:01 AM
That entire article is incredibly revealing. Lots of good info in there.

orange
02-03-2012, 02:30 AM
It does explain a few things.

Expect Romney's BMS (Best Male Surrogate) Ron Paul to weigh in any minute defending him. It's what you do when you only want to Show.

Brainiac
02-03-2012, 07:12 AM
I think an alliance between Paul and Romney makes a lot of sense for both sides. Paul may be viewed by many as a flawed candidate because of his foreign policy positions, but there is no denying that he has some good ideas and that Romney could benefit by listening to him.

BucEyedPea
02-03-2012, 08:28 AM
So alnorth's observation during the debates that it was blatant these two weren't going after each other turns out correct.

patteeu
02-03-2012, 08:42 AM
So alnorth's observation during the debates that it was blatant these two weren't going after each other turns out correct.

Wasn't that obvious, after alnorth tipped you off to it if not before?

BucEyedPea
02-03-2012, 08:52 AM
I didn't watch it, you troll. I read it here.

You must feel dirty about the association. Time to switch your vote.

patteeu
02-03-2012, 09:10 AM
I didn't watch it, you troll. I read it here.

You must feel dirty about the association. Time to switch your vote.

Why? I don't hate Ron Paul. I'm comfortable that Mitt Romney won't abdicate his responsibility to defend the country just because he and Paul are friendly.

Taco John
02-03-2012, 09:34 AM
I'd like to get a picture of Ron Paul riding a motorbike with Mitt Romney riding shotgun in the bucket...

go bowe
02-03-2012, 11:25 AM
can you imagine ron paul as sec of defense?

that would be epic...

Taco John
02-03-2012, 01:51 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IDjJliX4ikg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Chocolate Hog
02-03-2012, 01:54 PM
Rand for VP.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-03-2012, 02:24 PM
Meh, F'em both then.

Taco John
02-03-2012, 04:01 PM
Meh, F'em both then.

I don't know why you'd say that. Ron Paul's career has been built on building coalitions to advance the cause of liberty. He's wise to be looking for the best way that he can use his delegate influence if he's not able to win the nomination outright.

BucEyedPea
02-03-2012, 04:08 PM
Rand for VP.

Keep Rand in the senate, p-l-e-a-s-e!

patteeu
02-03-2012, 04:10 PM
Keep Rand in the senate, p-l-e-a-s-e!

I don't think you have anything to worry about there. At least not for four more years.

Taco John
02-03-2012, 05:09 PM
I think this Paul/Romney stuff is actually big news and explains to me why Gingrich is being funded. I'm not kidding when I tell you that I believe Romney will do ANYTHING to get elected, and strategically pandering to the Paul base gives him a firewall against Newt Gingrich. Romney won't get all of them - it will be like herding cats - but I could easily see a Romney/Rand ticket, and even the $1 trillion dollar in one year cuts being made part of the platform. I see no reason why Romney wouldn't acquiesce to a full and open audit of the Federal Reserve.

Buchanan makes a great point in his blog (http://buchanan.org/blog/ron-paul-reactionary-or-visionary-4997) that foriegn policy is already moving in Paul's direction just for the fact of its cost. I think Paul would be happy to work on that from on the inside of a Romney administration than work on it from the outside of an Obama admin.

Milton Friedman once said that people have a great misconception in believing that the way you solve problems is by electing the right people. The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right things.

I believe a Romney/Paul candidacy would smoke Obama in a landslide.

alnorth
02-03-2012, 05:12 PM
Rand wont be a VP candidate, and he should say no if asked. Romney is not likely to beat Obama, and I'd rather not see Paul get stuck with the Kerry/Lieberman "loser senator" aura.

He's more powerful in the Senate, anyway. RP probably wants a platform and to influence a Romney administration in the off-chance he got elected.

Taco John
02-03-2012, 05:27 PM
Rand wont be a VP candidate, and he should say no if asked. Romney is not likely to beat Obama, and I'd rather not see Paul get stuck with the Kerry/Lieberman "loser senator" aura.

He's more powerful in the Senate, anyway. RP probably wants a platform and to influence a Romney administration in the off-chance he got elected.



I think that's fair speculation, which is all we're doing really. I don't agree. I personally believe that Chris Christy will serve his full term as governor so he doesn't get branded with the "bail from office" stigma that Palin has. I also don't think Christy adds to the independent appeal that Mitt is going to need to swing voters away from Obama.

Personally, from a political standpoint, I think VP falls between Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. Either one of these guys would help bring in an energetic base. I think that odds are in Rubio's favor, but given the political climate, I don't think it's a slam dunk by any stretch. And I know that Rand has presidential aspirations. Sure, he has more power in the Senate, but Palin has demonstrated that the Vice Presidency provides a pretty lofty perch for education. I generally agree that I'd rather see Rand Paul remain in the senate, but I'm not as convinced as you are that Rand would never get the invite. There's not a lot of other Republican choices that come with a built in, energetic base.

alnorth
02-03-2012, 06:16 PM
Chris Christie wont be the VP nominee for the reasons you've given. (and he's planning to be the savior in 2016 in an open election where he doesn't have to beat an incumbent Obama)

Romney cant pick Rand because the far-right would bail on him. It would be the absolute final straw, they already aren't happy with the moderate Mormon from Massachusetts, they are expecting a conservative VP pick.

wazu
02-03-2012, 07:38 PM
Why does it always turn into "Rand for VP"? Why not Ron? He's the one running for President and retiring from congress. Rand can actually do stuff in the Senate. Don't put him in a figurehead role.

Chocolate Hog
02-03-2012, 07:43 PM
Chris Christie wont be the VP nominee for the reasons you've given. (and he's planning to be the savior in 2016 in an open election where he doesn't have to beat an incumbent Obama)

Romney cant pick Rand because the far-right would bail on him. It would be the absolute final straw, they already aren't happy with the moderate Mormon from Massachusetts, they are expecting a conservative VP pick.

Um Rand Paul is a conservative.

Chocolate Hog
02-03-2012, 07:44 PM
Keep Rand in the senate, p-l-e-a-s-e!

Romney won't win but it'll help Rand's chances in 2016 if he's the VP pick.

alnorth
02-03-2012, 07:47 PM
Why does it always turn into "Rand for VP"? Why not Ron? He's the one running for President and retiring from congress. Rand can actually do stuff in the Senate. Don't put him in a figurehead role.

He doesn't want to be VP

BucEyedPea
02-03-2012, 08:05 PM
Romney won't win but it'll help Rand's chances in 2016 if he's the VP pick.

I just don't think there is any guarantee as to who will win or not.

BucEyedPea
02-03-2012, 08:40 PM
You know you’ve hit the big time when the Establishment comes knocking on your door with an offer to sell out. It means you’re drawing blood: that your campaign, or whatever, is having an effect — and not one that pleases the Powers That Be. They want to defang you, if not shut you up, and they’re willing to offer you what Satan offered Jesus up there on that mountain:

"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him." ...

Paul and his movement are onto the War Party’s games, and they are consciously fighting this left-right illusion — with amazing success. The time is right for it: the nation faces a crisis on a scale not seen since the 1930s. Once again we face the twin specters of an economy in collapse and a world at war. Paul cuts through the ideological fog and in doing so breaks with all the conventions, the worn and now useless political labels that have misled us for so long.

Smearing him hasn’t worked, mockery has just added to his fame, and ignoring him has seriously backfired on the mainstream media, which has made itself more hated by the Republican rank-and-file than it already is — no mean feat. Their last hope is to co-opt him – or, at least, co-opt his movement. And we are seeing the first signs of such an attempt in a front page story in the Washington Post, which posits the existence of a "strategic alliance" between Mitt Romney and Paul. ...


The plan, apparently, is to push Rand Paul for the Vice Presidential nomination. These people are deluding themselves – but, then again, that’s how the sell out starts.

More in the link—http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/02/02/can-ron-paul-be-tamed/

Be careful what you wish for. These guys are a crafty bunch. Cordiality does not necessarily mean an alliance. Don't take the bait even for Rand being the VP for later. They will marginalize him eventually anyway. Remember the Tea Party was also co-opted by Establishment Republicans who are really neo-mercantilists and not free-market advocates.

Taco John
02-03-2012, 08:51 PM
Why does it always turn into "Rand for VP"? Why not Ron? He's the one running for President and retiring from congress. Rand can actually do stuff in the Senate. Don't put him in a figurehead role.

Ron Paul has no further path forward as far as the presidency goes. If he doesn't get the nomination, there's really little point in him being VP. Rand Paul is the future of the movement, and I believe Ron Paul will do what's best for the movement (as opposed to his ego). Plus, I would think Paul could negotiate a Fed Chairmanship or Treasury head, which would be much more valuable to him than merely being the VP.

The VP spot is an audition for the next election. Under this scenario, Mitt Romney would have 8 years and Rand Paul would be in position for the next 4 after that.

BucEyedPea
02-03-2012, 09:25 PM
The one mentioned in the article on this alliance.

"The adviser, Trygve Olson, developed a friendship with Rand Paul, and the two realized that they could teach each other a lot — to the benefit of both candidate and party. Olson showed Paul and his campaign establishment tactics: working with the news media, fine-tuning its message...."

Who is Trygve Olson? A former official of the International Republican Institute (IRI), a tax-funded "regime-change" operation under the rubric of the National Endowment for Democracy, Olson was involved in several of the "color revolutions" that swept Eastern Europe and the central Asian former Soviet republics during the Bush years. This New York Times article reports on his activities in Belarus meddling in their internal politics and plotting to overthrow its thuggish President, Alexander Lukashenko: he also played a part in stirring up similar trouble on Washington’s behalf in Serbia and Poland.

At a meeting of the New Atlantic Initiative, another semi-official interventionist outfit, in 2004, Olson appeared on the same podium as various government apparatchiks of the old Cold Warrior/Radio Free Europe type, who gave seminars on the ins-and-outs of successful "regime change." While others gave talks on Lukashenko’s "links" to Saddam Hussein and Israel’s other enemies in the region, Olson gave a presentation on polling results in the country. A particular area of concern was the possibility of an economic or political union with Russia, which was seen by the participants as the main threat to "democracy" and Europeanization in Belarus. And while meddling in Eastern Europe appears to be his specialty – his wife, Erika Veberyte, served as chief foreign policy advisor to the Speaker of the Lithuanian parliament – this biography on the web site of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University says:

Same link as I used earlier.

wazu
02-03-2012, 10:30 PM
Ron Paul has no further path forward as far as the presidency goes. If he doesn't get the nomination, there's really little point in him being VP. Rand Paul is the future of the movement, and I believe Ron Paul will do what's best for the movement (as opposed to his ego). Plus, I would think Paul could negotiate a Fed Chairmanship or Treasury head, which would be much more valuable to him than merely being the VP.

The VP spot is an audition for the next election. Under this scenario, Mitt Romney would have 8 years and Rand Paul would be in position for the next 4 after that.

It's a rare feat that a vice president is ever elected to the presidency. If Ron Paul is VP, I don't think there will be any loss to Rand Paul's brand when he decides to run for president himself. Imagine...Rand Paul as a Senator introducing legislation. And Ron Paul there to break the tie if it comes to that. I'm sure Ron Paul can help identify plenty of good candidates to run the Fed or Treasury.

BucEyedPea
02-03-2012, 11:10 PM
It's a rare feat that a vice president is ever elected to the presidency. If Ron Paul is VP, I don't think there will be any loss to Rand Paul's brand when he decides to run for president himself. Imagine...Rand Paul as a Senator introducing legislation. And Ron Paul there to break the tie if it comes to that. I'm sure Ron Paul can help identify plenty of good candidates to run the Fed or Treasury.

Do you really think the Establishment would let him put someone good in the Fed? It's through the Fed the govt can spend so much. That includes all our military interventions. Why would they want their gravy train to end?

wazu
02-03-2012, 11:51 PM
Do you really think the Establishment would let him put someone good in the Fed? It's through the Fed the govt can spend so much. That includes all our military interventions. Why would they want their gravy train to end?

If Romney and GOP are really starting to lean Paul's way, maybe. Seems like the "Fed" thing has been embraced somewhat. Not that I care. I think the "Fed" issue has been over-emphasized by Ron Paul. "Ending" the Fed is a mistake. Auditing/Limiting is a great idea.

Chocolate Hog
02-04-2012, 12:24 AM
Fox News Opinion Piece thinks Romney will ask Ron Paul to be Treasury Secretary

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...ul-phenomenon/

Taco John
02-04-2012, 12:56 AM
If Romney and GOP are really starting to lean Paul's way, maybe. Seems like the "Fed" thing has been embraced somewhat. Not that I care. I think the "Fed" issue has been over-emphasized by Ron Paul. "Ending" the Fed is a mistake. Auditing/Limiting is a great idea.

Like most all of Paul's policy proposals, he is in favor of incrementalism. He doesn't call for the abolishment of the Fed so much as he calls for competing currencies, which would transition the economy with minimal disruption. This is already happening. The states have caught on to the central issue of our dollar (http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/03/pf/states_currencies/) and are looking for ways to protect their local economies. The question is whether or not the Federal Government will allow them to, or whether it will step in and outlaw this form of exchange.

"The Fed Thing" has not been over-emphasized at all. It's just that like with most issues, Paul is ahead of the curve. Paul wants to allow these competing currencies to be issued.

wazu
02-04-2012, 01:42 AM
Like most all of Paul's policy proposals, he is in favor of incrementalism. He doesn't call for the abolishment of the Fed so much as he calls for competing currencies, which would transition the economy with minimal disruption. This is already happening. The states have caught on to the central issue of our dollar (http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/03/pf/states_currencies/) and are looking for ways to protect their local economies. The question is whether or not the Federal Government will allow them to, or whether it will step in and outlaw this form of exchange.

"The Fed Thing" has not been over-emphasized at all. It's just that like with most issues, Paul is ahead of the curve. Paul wants to allow these competing currencies to be issued.

Sorry, but I just don't see it. Competing currencies? Seriously? I can embrace and imagine quite a bit, but walking up to the cashier and offering them something other than dollars and cents is too far out there. We already have a widely desired and universal currency at our disposal. Fix any fundamental problems with that and move on.

wazu
02-04-2012, 01:46 AM
One more note on that - I am fine with making "competing currencies" legal. I just think it's a waste of time. There will be a handful of Ron Paul guys selling each other trinkets via the web, but outside of that the rest of America wouldn't even grasp the concept.

Taco John
02-04-2012, 03:27 AM
Sorry, but I just don't see it. Competing currencies? Seriously? I can embrace and imagine quite a bit, but walking up to the cashier and offering them something other than dollars and cents is too far out there. We already have a widely desired and universal currency at our disposal. Fix any fundamental problems with that and move on.

You misunderstand the fundamental problems if you thing that there is a fix at this point. There is one thing, and one thing alone that is keeping the US dollar alive right now and it is the Petrol Dollar. What people fail to understand is that the dollar IS backed by a hard commodity: oil. Every nation in the world has to use American dollars to buy oil. When you start there to understand how our currency works and trace the way our economic system works - complete with us subsidizing European countries a free national defense while they use their economic resources to prop up lavish socialist system - you won't help but see that the situation is untenable. It's not a workable system. Anyone can understand that eventually the value of the oil eventually becomes greater than the value of the dollar - What happens then?

But ultimately, the point is this: it doesn't matter if you see the purpose or viablility of competing currencies. What matters is that there are states that are seeing the viability of competing currencies (http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/03/pf/states_currencies/) as safeguards against a black swan economic event. The question is how should an economic conservative republican react to this question: in the favor of centralization, or in the favor of competition?

Taco John
02-04-2012, 03:27 AM
One more note on that - I am fine with making "competing currencies" legal. I just think it's a waste of time. There will be a handful of Ron Paul guys selling each other trinkets via the web, but outside of that the rest of America wouldn't even grasp the concept.

The smart ones would grasp it just fine. In a black swan economic event, commodities are much more valuable than paper. It's just like car insurance. Even if it wasn't mandated by law, I'd still get it because it's a good idea in case of emergency (not to mention as a hedge against inflation).

Cave Johnson
02-04-2012, 08:40 AM
For TJ:


There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

BucEyedPea
02-04-2012, 08:55 AM
For TJ:


There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year oldís life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Irrelevant

Taco John
02-04-2012, 10:40 AM
For TJ:


There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.


Krugman says a lot of things I find irrelevant to this thread. I'm glad you found one of them.

I have noticed Krugman has nothing to say about Bastiat's "The Law." That one will change your life too. It, also, has nothing to do with this thread, but just in case you'd like to actually learn something and not merely regurgitate mildly amusing axioms, I though I'd bring it up.