Ron Paul's Secret: The Best Not-Romney Is Someone Who Is Genuinely Not Like Mitt Romney

The GOP primary race so far has resembled nothing so much as a reality TV show. And in the way that reality TV stars are famous for being famous, Mitt Romney increasingly looks to be inevitable because of his inevitability. With a celluloid-thin win in Iowa earlier this month followed up by a decisive win in New Hampshire last night, Romney is the clear front runner in the race, despite continued lukewarm feelings toward him from much of the Republican elite as well as the conservative activist base.

That’s not to say that the base hasn’t made its discomfort known. Party activists and leaders have strained and fumbled for a credible anti-Romney since last summer, but never found one with staying power. The hunt is still on. The Washington Post reports that some conservative activists are now engaged in a last minute scramble to find a viable alternative to Romney. Their repeated failures so far, however, do not bode well for any last-ditch efforts to find and promote a consensus alternative.

One by one, the parade of GOP not-Mitts up until now has fallen by the wayside—Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and now Santorum have all had their 15 minutes and then been yanked off stage. Huntsman, whose third place finish last night barely passes for a moment in the sun, can almost certainly expect similar treatment. Each of these candidates has been greeted with excitement, only to be pushed to the sidelines after revealing significant weaknesses. Early contenders—Bachmann, Perry, and Cain—simply didn’t appear up to the task of running a competent campaign, much less a White House. More recent possible alternatives—Gingrich and Santorum—have proven themselves to be flaky big-government conservatives with unappealing personalities and ideas.

Each of the candidates has different problems, but the thread that unites them is that they’ve all offered some variant on relatively conventional Republicanism. And if you’re going to nominate a conventional Republican, then why not nominate Romney, who (at least since he left office in Massachusetts) has offered nothing if not dutiful adherence to convention. At this point, practically his whole appeal is based on some abstract collective ideal of generic Republicanism—pro-business, anti-tax; pro-America, anti-Obama.

There’s one candidate, of course, who I have yet to mention: Rep. Ron Paul. Unlike the numerous GOP flavors of the week, Paul has been building his support and his momentum slowly. After his solid second-place finish in New Hampshire last night, Paul has arguably emerged as the most effective anti-Romney candidate in the GOP field. And one thing you can say about Paul is that he is not offering anything that could be described as conventional Republicanism; his campaign is built on opposition to defense spending and overseas adventurism, a critique of the Federal Reserve, and a return to constitutionally limited government. Compare this to the shrugging acceptance with which Romney’s vanilla campaign and laundry list of GOP priorities have been greeted; Paul, in contrast, has managed to generate tremendous, unusual enthusiasm. Indeed, he’s the only candidate in the race who has been able to sustain and build such enthusiasm over time. Who knew? The most effective anti-Romney turns out to be someone who is genuinely not like Mitt Romney. 

Read Brian Doherty on Ron Paul's amazing night in New Hampshire. Read Jacob Sullum on why Paul should be proud to be outside the GOP mainstream

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Occupy Wall Street VPS||

    None of these Republican candidates will address the real issues:

    *A shrinking middle class
    *Jobs being shipped overseas
    *Union-busting and the slashing of wages and benefits for working families
    *Growing unemployment
    *Massive student debt and youth unemployment
    *Growing inequality

  • Occupy Wall Street VPS||

    One more thing--

    So-called "free" trade which has been an utter disaster for everyone involved, except the top 1% (see: NAFTA).

  • ||

    Romney, disappointingly, has been the most anti-free trade candidate. Of course, like Obama, he's only playing folks like you for fools.

  • Brandon||

    Explain how it has been an utter disaster. And out of curiosity, what kind of device are you posting from?

  • Occupy Wall Street VPS||

    Go here:

    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblo.....the-ground

    Just one example: it has DESTROYED the traditional farming economy in Mexico by flooding their market with cheap American corn. The result? A massive increase in illegal immigration to the US, which also lowers wages here.

  • Sparky||

    It's obvious you've never been here before. Before trolling with dumb shit it might be helpful to see where the community actually stands.

  • ||

    No, this is clearly rectal/White Indian's next character. Just try to ignore her.

  • anon||

    Damn, I see it now, with the styling. I've been had!

  • anon||

    Man, feeding mexican families on the cheap was bad for mexicans?

    I sure would -love- for my food to cost 5x what it costs now.

  • Tak Kak||

    Racial Nationalists and progressives sure agree on a lot.

  • ||

    Is a blog a qualified source?

  • RedDragon6009||

    Only if it's H&R.

  • AlmightyJb||

    Well the goverment fixed the cheap corn with ethanol subsidies that ended up starving a lot of people when all the corn was diverted to ethanol production. Gotta a break a few eggs though right?

  • Suki||

    Was that Castro's complaint or that crazy Venezuelan's?

  • jj||

    Attack the man, not the message. A Suki classic.

  • roystgnr||

    I heard that Suki often drives on freeways, just like the ones *Hitler* built!

  • WTF||

    Why do you want poor Mexicans to have to pay more for corn? Do you want them to starve because you hate poor Mexicans?

  • RedDragon6009||

    "Do you want them to starve because you hate poor Mexicans?"

    Who does he think he is? Obama?

  • ||

    ""So-called "free" trade which has been an utter disaster for everyone involved""

    The ignorance in that statement shines.

    Free trade, and jobs overseas has done much to help poor people buy products. Think Walmart.

    Therefore I conclude that you want the inequality to grow since you prefer items cost more to cover higher wages.

    Bill Clinton worked hard on courting the Chinese so companies like Walmart could see more afordable products.

  • Occupy Wall Street VPS||

    Look at what it's done to the traditional farming economy of central Mexico--after being flooded by cheap agribusiness corn, Mexican farmers were forced to migrate to the US to be exploited. It's destroyed local, sustainable economies and fueled illegal immigration which furthers lower wages and income inequality in the US.

    The only people to benefit are the top 1%.

  • WTF||

    So you want corn to be too expensive for poor Mexicans. Why do you want poor Mexicans to starve?

  • anon||

    after being flooded by cheap agribusiness corn, Mexican farmers were forced to migrate to the US to be exploited.

    Yup, we marched down there, put a gun to their head and said "Get your ass to work you dirty spic!" I remember when we sent the army down there to do this.

    The only people to benefit are the top 1%.

    Yeah I remember this too; nobody ever benefited from fresh, cheap food. Hell, those kids in africa are only starving because food is so fucking cheap.

  • Suki||

    In Africa kids are starving because their parents do not have guns to fight against the people starving them at gunpoint.

  • anon||

    Psh, I'm specifically referring to those annoying as shit TV ads with the sullen tone "Feed a kid for a dollar a year!" crap.

  • o3||

    so who watches ads? mute, surf, get another beer...

  • ||

    ... so I guess them thar "local economies" weren't so "sustainable" after all, huh?

  • Suki||

    Proof you are responding to a bad troll instead of a serious leftard. You mentioned Walmart and they ignored it.

  • MiNGe||

    TRAKTOR PULLZ!!!

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    For your sake, I really hope you're trolling.

  • Suki||

    A free market will fix all of that. Thank you for visiting reason to find the solution to your puzzle.

  • ||

    I don't think the free market will fix the massive student debt issue. The free market can't fix stupid.

  • .||

    IOW, it will fix it.

  • anon||

    Government's already bought all that debt, so the problem must be solved right?

  • ||

    No.

  • anon||

    Satire is lost on you I believe.

  • ||

    Yeah, it doesn't come across very well in text.

    My bad.

  • ||

    anon forgot the "/sarcasm" at the end. ;-)

  • Suki||

    Yes, a free market will fix that too. Think Free Market instead of government loans.

  • ||

    That will not prevent people from deciding that taking out a $100,000 loan to go to NYU is cool becuase they want to study in NYC, then crying about their debt.

  • Tak Kak||

    Perhaps loans won't be given out like candy.

  • RedDragon6009||

    If all of those dumb ass college kids would just find rent controlled apartment they wouldn't need so many damn student loans.

  • Zeb||

    It will stop lenders from giving them the loan in the first place. Do you think anyone would lend $100,000 to some dipshit teenager without some sort of guarantee?

  • ||

    You can't discharge a student loan, even upon death. They can go after your estate to get the money. That's a better guarantee than most loans.

  • Occutard||

    But when I took the loan out, I thought free market meant that the loan was free!

  • Max||

    *the innate criminality of blacks
    *the homosexual conspiracy to cover up the threat of AIDs
    *the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job

  • ||

    FUCK THE PO-LICE TUH PUM TUH PUM TUH TUH
    FUCK THE PO-LICE TUH PUM TUH PUM TUH TUH
    FU- FU- FUCK THE PO-LICE

  • wayne||

    Which of the Democratic candidates will address your list of issues?

  • ||

    If you actually listened to RP's speech you would hear him address issues like the shrinking middle class. Which is one of the problems that piss me off with a majority of you occupiers. You copy and paste this stuff from web sites, yet you haven't done any real research on your own. You hit the repeat button on the party rhetoric. You have no opinions of your own. You use large fonts you highlight and underline words to show how passionate you are protesting behind your iPad trolling. No better then the neo cons that you presume we are.

  • ||

    Actually, Ron Paul explicitly addresses many of the points which you raise. Rising unemployment, shipping jobs overseas, shrinking middle class, and rising inequality are all properly addressed by shrinking the government, ending borrowing, and especially ending inflation. I've heard Ron Paul mention all of these issues frequently. You simply must not be listening. I recommend googling up his NH town hall events. Google "Cantillon Effect" while you are at it, and remember that the Fed is Wall Street's Bank.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Oh Slapdick McGee! Will you ever learn?

  • ||

    Huntsman actually has governed more conservatively than Romney (caveats apply because Utah is not Massachusetts). The liberal love and conservative hate for him is based entirely on cultural reasons, with him aligning culturally (intentionally) in such a way. It's as stupid as the way that Sarah Palin was loved and hated for things having nothing to do with views.

    But that's what politics is, a popularity contest about cultural affinity.

    Still, Huntsman actually would have had a good shot at the nomination, it turns out, if he had ran on his record instead of trying to be the candidate with a conservative record appealing to liberals culturally.

  • asdf||

    He still raised spending in his state and blows ass.

  • BakedPenguin||

    The problems with Huntsman as not-Romney are 1) he's as bland as Romney 2) he's also a Mormon. It's like getting a light version of light beer.

    That said, I think there will still be an effort to pimp him.

  • anon||

    3: He's a progressive.

  • robc||

    So, he is Bud Select 55?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Yes, but with less taste.

  • anon||

    Unpossible.

  • robc||

    In 2011, Coors Light passed Bud as the #2 beer in America.

    Bud Light has been #1 for about a decade.

  • anon||

    Whoa whoa whoa whoa hold on there.

    We have very different definitions of "beer." I thought we were talking about alternatives to water here.

  • Barry Loberfeld||

    It's like getting a light version of light beer.
    Love it — that's almost good enough to quit your day job.

  • Robert||

    That is funny, isn't it? Just by being a musician, etc., he has branded himself a certain way. Ditto re Palin.

    What I don't understand is the fear by conservatives reported on in the Wash. Post article. Why do they have to be united pre-convention? Why can't the various delegates for Not-Romney just proceed thru to the convention and decide there? Are they afraid that Romney will by virtue of his small pluralities in early primaries & caucuses (including some votes, like Iowa's, that were mere beauty contests) start getting majorities of delegates in later primaries, caucuses, and conventions, just by virtue of looking like a winner?

  • Robert||

    What's going to be interesting is seeing in later primaries how well slates of delegates labeled "uncommitted" do.

  • rts||

    Alt-alt text: No, seriously, get the fuck out.

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    "Hey, well at least I'm not this fuckin' guy!" (Best if repeated with your best New York Guido voice)

  • Brett L||

    "Big hair, no cattle."

  • Brandon||

    The problem is the semiliterate cunts who really want to vote for Paul, but won't because Fox News and Rush keep telling them that it would be "wasting their vote."

  • ||

    You are absolutely right. I have a family member who is following the Fox mandate of no Ron Paul. Can't fully articulate why, just mindlessly repeats that Iran will start nuclear war. My last salvo was to point out that we can have no "foreign policy" if we can't afford our military. I got no response to that.

  • ||

    ""just mindlessly repeats that Iran will start nuclear war."'

    You could have asked him if Iran has a pre-emptive right to attack those who plan to attack Iran.

    I, more and more, am becoming convinced that Iran may. But if so, it will be in repsonse to another nation assassinating its citizens. Even we might go to war for that reason.

  • ||

    Ah, the "Why won't you morons vote for us?" approach.

  • Brandon||

    Try the "Why won't you vote for the candidate who actually espouses what you believe in instead of the candidate that the people who benefit so greatly from the status quo want you to vote for?" approach. There's no "Us." I have yet to see Brandon on a ballot.

  • Joe||

    Exactly, and if Romney is going to win anyway, why not vote for the candidate that you actually believe represents your views? If voting for Paul is a wasted vote, so is voting for Romney.

  • Julie||

    Might it also be because of alienators like you calling them cunts?

  • Joe||

    Don't be a cunt. Sorry, I had to.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Like they know what "cunts" means, how the hell to use an internet browser to access Hit'n'run, and if they actually think they can be considered morons by anybody.

  • Brandon||

    The cunts I'm referring to probably don't frequent Reason.com. However, in case they do, this is for them:

    Don't be a cunt! Vote Paul!

  • Tango Mike||

    Did your fingers burn when you typed "it"?

  • kock suxors||

    Go ahead, you republitardicants, vote for libertardian Wrong Paul. Or Greedy Mitts Wrongney. 4 reals, we will wipe you with the floor!!

    Obama 2012!

  • Digital Ruse||

    I thought there were firewalls in place to prevent children from posting on grown-up websites at school.

  • roystgnr||

    Most public school firewalls are of roughly the same quality as most public school classes. More educational, though, since the kids learn networking principles while figuring out how to circumvent them.

  • anon||

    Dear sir,
    I have found your argument to be so persuasive that I have now changed my entire life ideology to reflect how good a powerful federal government is for the . Where can I sign up for your newsletter?

  • PIRS||

    +9999999999999999999999999999999999999

  • The floor||

    Finally, a chance to see this from the wiper's perspective!

  • Joe||

    In soviet Russia, floor wipes you!

  • guy in the back row||

    Wasn't there someone else who wiped the floor 4 reals a few years ago in Europe?

  • ||

    Zukov? Eisenhower?

  • GrizzlyAdam||

    You know, if you were really clever, your handle would be "koch suckers".

  • Joe||

    Win.

  • ||

    Do you all hold with the idea that Romney is better than Obama? Or are you willing to vote for Paul knowing that will probably get Obama re-elected. I am actually OK with Obama being re-elected because I see no true difference between him and Romeny. I also think that Obama could possibly help turn lazy conservatives into libertarians. What do you all think?

  • robc||

    Most* here are going to vote for Paul if he wins the GOP nomination and Johnson if he doesnt.

    *a plurality, at least

  • NoVAHockey||

    that's my plan.

  • Joe||

    Same here.

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    What he said.

  • Brandon||

    Yep.

  • ||

    I'm voting for Romney if he gets the nomination, with a bad aftertaste I'm sure I'll get from that being tolerable. But I'm for Ron Paul all the way.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I have said this before, but no one cares if you have a "bad aftertaste". Your plan to vote for Romney still makes you part of the problem.

  • Joe||

    Agreed. If only people voted for what they believed in. If Paul doesn't win the nomination, you should be voting for Johnson.

  • Old Man with Candy ||

    I'm voting for Mary Ruwart.

  • ||

    Since I live in Tejas, I can throw my vote away to Johnson, feel good about myself and still chide others if Obama wins.

    That's what I call a Win Win Lose.

  • ||

    Same

  • anon||

    Romney's better than Obama simply because he's so malleable to the voters. I doubt he'd push for legislation as widely unpopular as Obamacare. I doubt he'd really push for much of anything, because he doesn't really believe in anything but votes. I'd prefer a president that does nothing rather than one that pushes for more laws and regulations.

  • Robert||

    I agree. If he'd been in some other state, there'd've been no Romneycare. You might as well call it Masscare.

  • Tank||

    I pretty much agree. I'd prefer Obama winning in 2012 over Romney, under the theory it gives us a greater chance at real change in 2016.

  • jj||

    Exactly. President Rand Paul in 2016

  • ||

    Have you guys noticed that one of the greatest things about Rand is that he's got that powerful militancy in his advocay of policy, principles, and ideology? He doesn't pussyfoot around. It's one of his best qualities. I think he should start planning for a 2016 run.

  • jj||

    Agreed. I don't think Rand differs much from Ron in his principles, but his rhetoric is well crafted for the right.

    I admire Ron's blatant honesty but have great hope for Rand's future.

  • Joe||

    I totally agree. Rand would make a great candidate because of that.

    It'd be interesting to have a Ron/Rand ticket this year. Don't see that happening though.

  • Franco||

    Romney might repeal Obamacare. Other than that or if the SCOTUS overturns than he'll be the same as Obama's 2nd term.

  • WTF||

    Might be a bit of a difference in SCOTUS nominees between Obama and Romney.

  • Brandon||

    Romney isn't repealing shit. He loves the status quo, and will maintain it with a death grip as long as he can reward his cronies like Obama does with his.

  • ||

    I am not OK with Obama getting reelected any more than I'm OK with Romney getting elected.

    Obama will be reelected and nothing short of a child molestation scandal can stop that now.

    I'll be voting for Paul in the MO R primary, and for the LP candidate (presumably and hopefully Johnson) in the general.

    Who the fuck knows if it will make a difference before the dollar goes to zero and the streets of NY, LA, and Atlanta run red with blood.

  • Joe||

    Am I the only person who thinks that Obama has no chance? His numbers are lower than Carter's. Even people that voted for him hate him.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Just wait for the tried and "true" "if you don't support Obama you are a racist" strategy to push those turncoats back into the fold.

  • jj||

    I spoke to my socialist brother in law who voted for him last time around. He's been heavily disappointed in him, but he would still vote for him again, even if he turned into a nazi. The left is for their own ruling government, even if it means betraying all of their principles (war, civil liberties, gay rights, drugs, etc).

  • Joe||

    True. I voted for him last time as well. I'd never do that again. I wish I could recant that vote. I just didn't like McCain and hated his choice of Palin (if you make that mistake you're going to suck at decisions). And I didn't want to go third party. I expected "change" and someone who could unite the country like a Kennedy/Moon Landing kind of thing. Unfortunately Obama's change wasn't the kind I could believe in and he betrayed everything I expected. For some reason I just didn't expect him to be another big government liberal. Oops.

    The thing that annoys me the most is that both sides don't realize that they really should just be Libertarian. If you actually believe in freedom to any extent, there's no other LOGICAL option.

  • Thom||

    I voted for Obama the last time as well, and while he is one of the worst Presidents in modern memory, I still think he's far and above better than McCain would have been. If McCain were President we'd be at war with Iran already.

  • ||

    Except Obama was exceptionally obvious in the most important way all throughout his political career -- his ideology was abominable. Voting for him because you believed he'd be some sort of tax-cutting hard-blood like Kennedy was, no offense, retarded.

  • BakedPenguin||

    If you wind up voting for Romney, you might be hearing something similar in a few years.

  • BakedPenguin||

    1:34 @RPA

  • Joe||

    To me, voting for McCain was equally retarded because he chose a retard as a running mate. And Obama hardly had a record when compared to McCain.

    I didn't think he'd double up Bush (that's quite a feat) and I didn't expect him to cut taxes. I just expected him to unite people a little bit. Division is our biggest enemy. That's why the "terrorists win" and why we've been on a downward trend (with regard to freedom and production) since 2001.

  • robc||

    The fact that I voted for Barr says a whole lot about the Obama/McCain choice.

    Am I right in guessing that 2008 was your first presidential election? Some of us have had time to be more cynical.

    My first presidential election I decided to vote for Bush 1 instead of Ron Paul, because I wanted my vote to "count". Last time I fell for that sucker play.

  • Joe||

    Nope. I voted for Kerry in 2004, because I didn't want Bush again. Kerry was a shitty candidate but he didn't sign the Patriot act, and I wanted my vote to "count."

    I've been cynical for a while, but I believed in Obama's character. Usually I'm better at discerning it. This year it's either Paul or Johnson. From now on I'm voting on the person that best represents me and if that person doesn't exist I won't vote unless it helps in some fashion to do so.

  • jj||

    well said, Joe.

  • Joe||

    Thanks.

  • robc||

    Choosing Palin was about the best decision McCain made in 2008 (which says a lot about the rest of his decisions).

  • Joe||

    I'd disagree. I was way more likely to vote for McCain before he chose that idiot as a running mate. The only person worse would have been Bachmann.

  • Joe||

    Sorry, I misread that. Yeah, it might have been his best decision in 2008.

  • 0x90||

    I would vote for Paul. Otherwise, I'll vote for the write-in candidate, Mr. NO CONFIDENCE.

  • Brandon||

    What happens if No Confidence gets 51%?

  • 0x90||

    I wish more people would ask themselves that question. That's why I vote for him.

  • Ska||

    Somalia, derp.

  • anon||

    drink

  • Ska||

    Gladly.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Couldn't get a sheet of paper between Romney and Obama, AFAIC. I really don't see any meaningful difference between them at all.

    Also, Paul is making a lot of progressives re-examine their priorities. He'll get votes from pissed-off lefties who actually care about the WoD, WoT, civil rights, transparency, crony capitalism, etc. A few (R) idiots have already tried to label him as a (modern) liberal. So I don't know that the "stolen election" nonsense will fly.

  • NoVAHockey||

    "He'll get votes from pissed-off lefties who actually care about the WoD, WoT, civil rights, transparency, crony capitalism, etc."

    I'd like to think this is true, but I don't think those issues are that important to them. You see the posts on Greenwald's stuff.

  • BakedPenguin||

    There have been others that I've read, including another writer at Salon. (Someone here linked to it). What was really impressive was that progressives were responding in a rational way. (e.g., "I hate his economics, but Obama has been terrible on Wars, civil rights, etc...) I'm sure they're a minority, but at least some are thinking about the issues instead of just TEAM BLUE TEAM RED.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Do you have any doubt that even Greenwald would pull the lever for Obama? I don't --- all he talks about is how "important" it is that these issues are raised in some kind of vain hope that it will reform Obama.

  • BakedPenguin||

    That's pretty much where I came from - in college I was a liberal who believed in civil rights, etc. I voted (L) before I really was one, largely because I was sick of the hypocrisy among TEAM BLUE hacks.

    I'm sure that's a minority position among TEAM BLUErs, but it's not negligible.

  • ||

    If Clinton can dash to the middle, why can't Obama? Granted, the Clintons were politically wise pragmatists. Obama is a Chicago machine boss.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I don't think he possesses the level of self-awareness to make that change, or the humility to admit he could ever be wrong. Also, he likes power. I mean, him and Michelle Antoinette really like power.

  • ||

    Gosh, I really care about the WoD, WoT, civil rights, transparency, crony capitalism, etc.

    But, TEAM BLUE!!

    [Pulls lever.]

  • BakedPenguin||

    Yup. See also: 'Gosh, I really care about the WoD, WoT, civil rights, transparency, crony capitalism, etc. But, TEAM RED!!'

    There are at least 2 regulars here who've already said they'd vote for Romney as the lesser-of-two-evils.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    He'll get votes from pissed-off lefties who actually care about the WoD, WoT, civil rights, transparency, crony capitalism, etc.

    And all of the Democratic unicorns, Yetis, Sasquatches and orcs.

  • ||

    yeah, I agree.
    how is Romney different from Obama is different than Bush?
    At least Clinton reformed welfare and brought back office blow jobs (my hero!!!) - the noblest, greatest acheivement by a president since Harding...(or should I say Hardon... heh heh).

  • BakedPenguin||

    Also, what robc said.

  • ||

    I think Obama is better in the long-run. Even though, as a friend said, 'Can you imagine how incredibly smug Obama would be as an ex two-term president?'

  • MJGreen||

    How does voting for Paul help get Obama re-elected?

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    By depriving Romney of at least 5% in the general election which is enough to cost it for him. At the same time, the Republicans will have deserved another loss. Sometimes, it takes repeated failure for people to learn.

  • MJGreen||

    But that presumes the Paul voters would have otherwise voted for Romney. If they had stayed home instead of voting for Paul, Romney would have still lost.

  • robc||

    Paul wont be running in the general.

  • ||

    Romney is just a white Obama.

  • annonymous commenter some guy||

    I disagree that Paul can't beat Obama. In fact I think Paul has the best shot. The Republican base hates Obama enough to vote against him. Paul can pull more Independents and Democrats than Romney. Paul will pull a big piece of the libertarian vote, whereas Romney will pull none of it. Paul has the best shot at Obama of anyone in the elephant field.

  • Zeb||

    Definitely not voting for Obama or Romney, I can tell you that much. Assuming no miracle for Paul, I'm for Johnson in the general (assuming the LP decides not to be completely insane this time).

  • Robert||

    I just hope the Republicans don't have (or adopt) bylaws for their nat'l convention like LP does, where after 2 ballots they start eliminating choices from the bottom. In 2004 that caused embittered supporters of the 2 front runners to knock both of them off and nominate a kook.

  • Thom||

    If Paul does end up capturing the nomination that will only make the debates between Obama and Romney all the more awkward...

  • ||

    LOL

    But not as bad as the media ignoring Rob Paul being sworn in as president on the Capital steps. I can see Jon Steart having Apolexy "But Paul is the president...of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA. HE WON!!! THE ELECTION!!! He's being sworn in on the Capitcal steps!!!! He has secret service, he's got the limo, air force one!!!! HE IS LIVING IN THE WHITE HOUSE. His scret service codename is FREEBIRD!!!! ARRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

    CBS - non-elected president Mitt Romney said that his non-administartion will back continued drone strikes in Africa, the Middle East, South American, and Sweden, Scotland, and Finland. Nonelected President Mitt said those damn Norwegians should watch themselves as well.

  • o3||

    paul would mumble-over the part about domestic enemies

  • Concerned Citizen||

    For you sake, you hope so.

  • cynical||

    As the one who pointed out the media blackout, I'd believe that of pretty much everyone else on TV news before Stewart. Not that he's great or anything, but he isn't as bad as everyone else.

  • ||

    One by one, the parade of GOP not-Mitts up until now has fallen by the wayside—Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and now Santorum have all had their 15 minutes and then been yanked off stage.

    Yeah no. Santorum did poorly in NH but will do well in SC (possibly coming in 1st) and well enough in FL. He will be the notromniac candidate by super Tue.

  • robc||

    On the last thread you said Romney was going to sweep SC and FL and the race would be over.

    Damn, thats a quick switch,

    Survey says:
    Troll 98

  • ||

    I think Romney will sweep. Rick will finish in the money in SC. If he can't raise more cash, he might finish behind Newt. But if he surges before the vote there is a possibility he'll take the lead. At any rate Frothy mixture is too unpalatable to actually prevent Romney from claiming the nomination, but he will be left standing as the "Not Mitt not named Paul" guy.

  • anon||

    Santorum and Perry will be out after Florida, Newt might have enough cash to do FL but I doubt it. Florida's the first "big league" state and Mitt will dominate with Paul in 2nd again. Huntsman out after SC.

  • ||

    Romney crapped out in Florida last time. Not sure where this idea that we love him is coming from.

  • anon||

    You have a good point about the idea of Romney dominating Florida. I thought it simply because of the amount of money necessary, but after reviewing a few polls Newt is actually outperforming, and it makes sense as to why Newt is moving left lately.

    I honestly have no idea where I picked up that Romney was going to win Florida; must be just the general malaise of conceding he's going to win the primary anyways.

  • ||

    Yeah no. Romney is dominating FL in the polls right now. Newt is dying and Santorum is surging. Paul is flat and will certainly finish behind Rick.

  • robc||

    Santorum's surge ended yesterday, he will be falling for the next 2.5 weeks, if he stays in that long.

  • ||

    Well the longer he's in the spotlight the uglier he gets. But SC is full of the the kind of Whiskey Tango that fill the ranks of teabaggers for Rick. A strong showing there could keep him going in FL.

  • ||

    Warren (to Mitt): Your overconfidence is your weakness.

    Mitt Romney: Your faith in SC's craziness is yours. Behold, our fully operational Mitt Star.

  • ||

    This is the single greatest comment I've ever read here.

  • ||

    Santorums surge leveled out this week and SC is still a toss-up for second between him and gingrich. If he finishes behind gingrich (AGAIN), he's toast financially. Newt goes forward, but has so many negatives that he's done by super tuesday. Romney and Paul take the 70/30 split after super tuesday.

  • ||

    Santorum and Gingrich will split SC and Florida, Romney will walk away with both victories. By the time one of them gives up, the other will have so little support left he'll quit after Super Tuesday.

    The GOP is succumbing to Romney inevitability.

  • anon||

    Do you think the OWS Vermin Piece of Shit trolls realize when their argument has been beaten into the ground with a jackhammer?

  • Ska||

    Vapidly pasted screeds aren't quite the same as arguments, are they?

  • Max||

    The other thing you can say about Ron Paul is that he is a crazy old fuck who has zero chance of winning the nomination.

  • MJGreen||

    You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.

  • ||

  • Brandon||

    You sure spend a lot of time and energy reading and commenting on articles about him though.

  • ||

    Except for Paul, the ideology of the republicans is so at odds with their actual stand as to cause whiplash to one merely sitting in front of a monitor:
    Small, limited goverment
    Reality - No Child Left Behind, the biggest expansion of Medicare since Johnson by Bush, Patrotic Act, etc.

    Balanced Budget
    Reality - tax cuts, increases in military spending, hands off big programs. Earmarks continue...

    The goverment that governs best is the government that governs least
    Reality - bedroom intrusion, can't let Puff the Magic Dragon alone, "targeted' tax cuts, etc.

    "Conservative" prudent foreign policy.
    Reality - have a war? lets have two! Whoops, I mean lets have 3!!!

    The CONSTITUTION:
    Reality - Newt Gingrich - judges are jerks, and the noble, altruistic congress, well respeced and honored by all citizens, should review their decisions. Of course, allthe other candidates screamed....(chirp, chirp...crickets - well, I guess other than Paul, none of the other republicans think an independent judiciary is really necessary)

    Come up with your own examples, its educational and fun!

  • Joe||

    I have a friend who argued like hell that Bush was a good President—and he believes in small government. He calls Paul an isolationist. In other words, he listens to Fox.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Make sure you tell him that he better sign up for the quagmire in Iran when it gets geared up. Hopefully he can protect our FREEDOMZ.

  • ||

    its a sad fact that people support their parties like they do their football teams. They don't know those people, never met them, most of the players are form out of town, and out of state, many of them were on "opposing" teams the previous year, and some of them will be on opposing teams next year. But by God they wear the aqua and chartreuse of Bumf*ck, USA and we will jump up and down, even though we are fat and couldn't run one yard. Rah-Rah go team Red!!! or Blue. but not purple...or green...that would like being bisexual, which is even worser than being gay...

    I like to read lefty blogs just to see the apolexy when an anti Obama commenter shows up. Principals don't matter - its the correct color shirt!!!! So what if Obama signed NADA - he did it with a heavy heart, HEAVY. Mucho Heavy. And regretting doing a bad thing is so much better than not doing a bad thing...

  • Joe||

    That NDAA disconnect is funny.

  • Principal Skinner||

    Yes, I matter, but I think you meant "principles."

  • ||

    Seymour! ;-)

  • guy in the back row||

    I wonder if Pawlenty is still kicking himself for dropping out after the Iowa starw poll.

  • guy in the back row||

    / straw

  • Max||

    Here are some of Ron Paul's brilliant insightes on the Constituion:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

  • anon||

    Maxipad,
    After a certain amount of decomposition, the only thing kicking a dead horse does is make you smell like death and decay.

    Sincerely,
    Everyone who's ever heard about the newsletters.

  • Max||

    That wasn't one of the newsletters, idiot.

  • anon||

    How many times have you brought the newsletters up in this comment section alone, Maxipad?

  • Max||

    Ron Paul has pointed out

    *the innate criminality of blacks
    *the homosexual conspiracy to cover up the threat of AIDs
    *the possibility that Israel was responsible for the 1993 bombing of the WTC

    If that sort of shit ever becomes mainstream, we're doomed.

  • Thom||

    And yet he's still the best candidate. Speaks volumes.

  • Bob||

    Max, your posts have pointed out how utterly stupid you are.

    If any of your shit became mainstream then we're doomed.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Let's see what has become mainstream - "racism holds down blacks, not out of wedlock births, high dropout rates, high illiteracy, etc... capitalism is evil, socialism is great...the state is greater than the individual... I could go on, but I'll let you do that for me.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Maxipad,

    *the innate criminality of blacks


    Can you show where the newslettes said "innate"? I believe you just projected yourself unwittingly - because you lack wit.

    *the homosexual conspiracy to cover up the threat of AIDs


    Actually it was the homosexual conspiracy to make AIDS much more serious and universal than what it really was. So you have it exactly backwards, like your brain.

    *the possibility that Israel was responsible for the 1993 bombing of the WTC


    You mean they weren't???

  • Tonio||

    Dear Max,

    Sure, newsletters happened. In. The. Past.

    If Ron Paul is so anti-gay how come he's the ONLY republican candidate not to sign NOM's anti-gay marriage pledge?

    How come he's the only republican candidate to actively promote gay rights?

    (raises plastic sheeting as if at Gallagher concert, in anticipation of Max's head asploding)

  • Ron Paul||

    How come I love DOMA so much?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Maxipad,

    Because it has a provision consistent with the 10th Amendment. That's why.

    You lost. The newsletters are dead. Stephanopoulos killed them for good, the arrogant bastard.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    What does "full faith and credit" mean to you exactly?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Rev Blue Moon,

    What does "full faith and credit" mean to you exactly?


    They're meaningless to me... without knowing the context, Rev.

  • ||

    How come I signed DOMA?

  • NoVAHockey||

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-.....-ron-paul-

    DeMint (?!) urging the GOP to listen to Paul.

  • ||

    DeMint's always been honest. I appreciate that.

  • robc||

    the Republican Party "needs" the libertarian movement.

    There is the honesty. He realizes that alienating 20-30 percent of the party and 50% of the under 30s is death for the GOP.

  • robc||

    Also, DeMint wouldnt be the worst of all possible Veep candidates. With SC in 1.5 weeks, an endorsement would do Paul a lot of good...just saying.

  • SIV||

    DeMint is the 2nd most "libertarian-leaning" sitting US Senator. He did quite a bit to help #1 Rand Paul get elected.

  • Max||

    How about Ron Paul's stupid fucking "War on Religion" drivel where he claims the Constitution is full of references to God? How can anybody trust this lying racist bag of shit?

  • ||

  • Brandon||

    The Constitution is full of references to God. So is the Declaration of Independence. But I guess you'd have to read it to know that.

  • Max||

    Show me one in the Constitution, you stupid fucking halfwit.

  • Thom||

    Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

  • Joe||

    BURNED!

    Max must be one of those cunts we were talking about earlier.

  • Robert||

    He signed one of the copies using one of his "walks among us" names.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Occupy your face,

    None of these Republican candidates will address the real issues:

    *A shrinking middle class


    Paul did - he's against inflation.

    *Jobs being shipped overseas


    Paul did - he's against overbearing regulation and taxation.

    *Union-busting and the slashing of wages and benefits for working families


    This is a non-issue invented by you. Union-busting? The only unions still in existence are busting themselves. As for shrinking wages, you only have teh Fed to thank for that - and Paul is against the Fed.

    *Growing unemployment


    Paul did.

    *Massive student debt and youth unemployment


    Paul addressed this.

    *Growing inequality


    Paul did - he's against inflation.

    So you lied on all counts except one where you let your fantasies run amok. I am obviously not amazed.

  • robert||

    Dana Bash, still a twit.

  • robert||

    CNN is still asking when RP will throw in the towel on this campaign. WTF

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: robert,

    CNN is still asking when RP will throw in the towel on this campaign. WTF


    CNN is like Khan still trying to have the last hard hit despite his crew being dead and the Reliant crippled. In the end, Paul... eh, Kirk, wins.

  • robert||

    I guess it is a weakness I have. They tease ya with something new from the Paul campaign after the break, and it is just Dana Bash bashing the campaign again. I am beginning to enjoy watching him refuse to take her seriously now.

  • ||

    I also will be voting for Paul in the primary, and was simply trying to decide if I was going to write him in in the general or vote for Johnson. Does Johnson have his name on the ballot in all states? I know he is running on the Libertarian ticket, but I haven't heard if he has met the deadlines. Lord knows that so far the only GOP candidates to meet the deadlines has been Paul & Romney.

  • ||

    The libertarian party typically is on the ballot for most if not all states. They have not yet held their convention, so at this point Johnson is just a candidate for their spot, though he would seem to have a good chance to win it.

  • Mensan||

    I heard on Fox News radio this morning:

    "Mitt Romney won the New Hampshire Republican Presidential primary last night with Gingrich and Santorum tied for fourth behind John Huntsman. Rick Perry finished fifth."

    It seems like thay missed something there.

  • Joe||

    I hate hearing shit like that from "news" sources.

  • nayanlaldas||

    Politician peoples never like each other at all weather it's good or not reason. What a crap thinking.....!!!
    search engine optimization rankings

  • ||

    I dont agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy, but I admit he is dead right, and much better than the other candidates, on most everything else. At the moment my preferences are Romney first, Paul second, and the others not at all (although I will vote for almost everybody other than Obama).

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement