Paul/Romney Deal in the Making, Time Magazine Strongly Hints


As the last regular mainstream media following Ron Paul gives up, a new piece up at Time gets the closest with what appears to be real meat to the oft-said, little-proved notion of a Ron Paul/Mitt Romney secret alliance (though it too repeats the outright lie that Paul never attacks Romney, which he did in both debates and ads).

Anyway, the parts that are closest to meat from Time:

Paul's campaign has sent discreet signals to Camp Romney that the keys to Paul's shop can be had for the right price….

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."….

Paul's acolytes insist their man cannot be bought. "Romney wants the ring of power. He wants it so bad," says Doug Wead, a Paul senior adviser. "Negotiating with Ron Paul is very difficult because he doesn't want anything. If he got the ring, he would throw it into Mount Doom."

Maybe so, but…Aides say if Paul can't win the nomination, four legislative priorities would top  the Texas Representative's wish 

Ron Paul's rEVOLution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired

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. Rand Paul, the junior senator from Kentucky and a Tea Party icon, is expected to launch his own White House bid in 2016. Being on the ticket now – or even being mentioned for it – would be a helpful step. Says one Paul adviser: "If you're talking about putting Rand on the ticket, of course that would be worth delivering our people to Romney."….

At the same time, Paul's backers recognize that selling supporters on an alliance with Romney carries special risks, since Paul's bond with his backers is predicted on his record of principled stands. A pact would have to be done "very cautiously," says Benton. "We wouldn't ask our people to do that if we worried they were just being coopted or that we were in some way selling out." 

The sourcing and strength of the assertions seem a little weird to me in this, with the "discreet signals" perhaps meaning the actual quotes from Benton later or perhaps hinting at knowledge too terrible to share or reveal.

And I would think that unnamed "Paul advisor" should know enough about the world of his candidate and his supporters to realize there ain't no easy way to "deliver our people" even if he merely means "release delegates" and even then I'm not sure most Paul delegates would have any interest in voting for anyone else.

As for his potential voters in November, that's an even harder sell. Pundits need to realize votes are not something like matter that can neither be created nor destroyed; that Paul created a fresh electorate largely from the near-majority who usually don't vote, and they could disappear from whence they came if he or someone like him is not around.

Jesse Benton had this to say about the Time story tonight to me: "As the article reports, we have talked with all three campaigns, usually at their request, at a variety of levels and generally about state convention activity. A brokered convention is now our stated goal, and winning the nomination for Dr. Paul will require extensive politicking. Anything past that is just innuendo." 

What does he reasonably think might actually entice Paul devotees to vote for a GOP candidate not Paul? I asked Benton. "We are fighting full throttle for Dr. Paul to  be the nominee, but if we fall short of the nomination and can force Ron into the VP slot, I think most of our supporters will consider voting Republican in the fall." 

I did some 

rough surveying of Paulite feelings on this tonight (including via Facebook, a site sufficiently vast to prove or disprove any trend). Specifically on Benton's guess about a VP slot, the Facebook page of the Paulite RevolutionPac did a survey, with nearly 700 responses, which found only 100 who said they would vote for Romney with Paul as VP, and 583 saying either "no" or "would write in Paul."

Some other Paul fans responses I got to the question, what would it take from a non-Paul presidential candidate to make you think of voting for him?

Bretigne Shaffer says that "Speaking for myself, there is no promise or concession a non-Paul candidate could make that would win my support, for the simple reason that I don't trust any non-Paul candidate to keep any promises. Paul has integrity, which makes him the anti-politician. It's why I support him." Michael Malice (read his cartoon biography by late comics legend Harvey Pekar) said "A promise that next year's budget will be smaller than this year's." Kyle Walker said "Ron Paul gets to pick the next Fed chair."

Some people said they could not imagine Paul would actually ever endorse any of the others, and that nothing could make them vote for a non-Paul Republican. And Joshua Clement Broyles said that "No deal. The records of those other GOP douchebags are all bad enough that I would't trust them if Ron Paul had them all installed with Harkonnen heart plugs, just in case. If voting for a shameless douchebag is the only choice, I'll just keep voting for Democrats, thanks" then added that "Actually, if you put Gingrich, Romney and Santorum in a 3-way caged death match, I would consider voting for whoever survives, provided, of course that all Presidential Veto powers are to be ceded to Ron Paul, regardless of the survivor."

There you go. More on this developing story/supposition as it develops.

In other Paul news tonight, he draws what his campaign reports as 4,600 people to the University of Illinois in Champaign for an event.

And you can buy now and read later my out-in-May book Ron Paul's Revolution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired.

NEXT: You Just Might Fall in Love with Mia Love

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ron Paul certainly went after Romney here in Virginia.

  2. Bretigne Shaffer says that "Speaking for myself, there is no promise or concession a non-Paul candidate could make that would win my support, for the simple reason that I don't trust any non-Paul candidate to keep any promises. Paul has integrity, which makes him the anti-politician. It's why I support him."

    And then she'll be up in arms when the eventual nominee isn't sympathetic to any Paul supporter concerns.

    Sort of like Reason's principled non-voter contingent that unfortunately have no principles against bitching about what an awful choice those who voted made.

    1. Nope! Don't really care. If Ron Paul doesn't run third party, which he will, I vote Gary Johnson. The end.

      1. A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Obama!

        1. A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Obama!

          Romney would be worse than Obama. He'd give the Democrats "bipartisan" cover for anything he signed.

          1. that is ridiculous speculation with zero basis in fact. As it stands, Repubs have a good chance of being the majority in both Houses. Romney could not help but be pulled to the right. And since Obama is no Clinton, we get four years of stasis, which sounds good on the little stuff but also means the big things go ignored.

            1. That is the best of all possible worlds. Much better than Republicans acting on the big things.

      2. Don't really care. If Ron Paul doesn't run third party, which he will

        You're an idiot. RP would never jeopardize his son's career by doing that; it'd get him nowhere, and his son even less than nowhere.

        1. You are right. The Paul family really cares about their political careers. You can tell by all the pandering they do....

          You really think Dr. Paul is worrying about whether Rand will be able to get re-elected. I don't think even Rand is worrying about that. Come on.

          1. you, sir, are an idiot.

            1. What a well-thought-out and reasonable response.

    2. Tulpa, that's a very lazy conflation of a lot of different types of people. I would never vote for any of the others (if it's not Paul, I'll vote LP, hopefully for Johnson). But I don't expect any of them to care about Paul's issues anyway.

      We know these three guys. It's not like they're random people formed fresh from purest clay. They have records, and their records are filled with unprincipled compromises, pursuit of directly anti-liberty policies, and bloated, unlimited government spending. It's the opposite of why people know Paul is legit. He also has a record, a and a long one at that.

    3. She's being a little extreme here, but still, unless a very relative economic freedom is your sole concern, what's Romney to a libertarian? What concessions does anyone think Romney will make? I don't even trust him to deliver to the base on Obamacare, so I don't seem him backtracking on things like war or civil liberties.

      Plus VPs don't really matter that much. Biden's spent his entire veephood waxing that Trans Am in the driveway.

      Paul supporters should be skeptical until there's evidence to back up any differences in position.

      For an analogy, consider the concessions anti-war or pro-legalization supporters have given the Democrats. Unless you threaten to withhold your vote (i.e. become a swing vote), there's nothing keeping a reluctant party from ignoring your views.

    4. Tulpa, remember when those stupid liberal assholes sang that song at some Obama fundraiser about how much they don't like him, but then ended it by saying they were going to vote for him anyway? And how much we all made fun of them?

      You're the GOP equivalent of those people. Just as they don't give a shit about what we think because we don't vote for them, they don't give a shit about what you think, either, because you're going to vote for the asshole anyway, regardless of what he does, just because he has an (R) after his name.

    5. lol. the ultimate oxymoron, with emphasis on MORON

      the "principled non-voter contingent"

    6. Tulpa, "sympathy to Paul supporter concerns" has no value if it's not sincere.

      So basically you're tut-tut-ing her with threats of a punishment that's meaningless by the terms she's already set out.

      If Romney personally promised me to, say, seek a Congressional DoW before any new employment of armed force overseas, the first thing I'd think is "Wow! What a concession! Maybe I should think about this offer." But the second thing I'd think is, "Oh wait, I almost forgot. He's lying."

      Romney would need to make a pretty big offer, so that even discounted by his lying-ness the offer would still be good. What's the discount? I'm not sure. Probably 75%.

      1. Agree with most of the pile onto Tulpa's comment. The only concession I'd be halfway interested in would be Ron Paul as Sec. Treasury. And I'd keep Fluffy's discount factor foremost in my head during the entire discussion.

        He's not getting the VP seat. Neither will Rand. As VP, the media would be forced to listen to them, or make their attempt to marginalize the Pauls even more obvious. Does anyone think that either Ron or Rand would shut their mouths for one second as VP during a Romney Admin?

        Despite the OP, the Pauls aren't getting shit. Either gas will be $5.50 a gallon by Nov, and Obama will lose to me, if I were running, or the economy and gas will upturn enough that >98% black votes, >80% Hispanic, and all the SWPL contingent will be enough to vote him in.

        1. Part 2:

          The GOP doesn't need libertarians to win, if it's possible for the GOP to win at all. There just aren't enough of us. Not enough to drown out the socons anyway. I would've thought that this primary season, where Ron's won what, the Virgin Islands (Maybe Iowa, depending on caucus chicanery?) would've told everyone that.

  3. Wait, Time Magazine said so?
    Ok then

  4. If Romney puts Rand on the ticket, I will pull the lever for him. I don't see it happening.

    Although I can't envision myself actually voting for Romney, I am beginning to hope he wins if only so that the left starts to care about civil rights again.

    1. Putting Rand on the ticket is the one thing that would make me think about voting for romney. Just to have Rand as the successor afterwards. Doubt it will happen though.

      1. I definitely would too, if Rand was VP or Paul was promised some cabinet post or whatever. Otherwise I'm voting LP. Fuck TEAM RED. But I don't think it's very likely. Romney will pick some establishment douche, and Rand will get his turn next time around.

    2. Romney is going to put Marco Rubio on the ticket if he even comes close to passing his "vetting".

      This, of course, will bring bazillions of Hispanics to the GOP cause, just like Sarah brought all those women.

      The GOP tries to play identity politics, but they are terrible at it.

      1. until people start looking at Rubio's record and discover he's just as establishment as long-tenured Repubs. The man supported a lot govt involvement while in the Florida State House. If his name was Mark Ruby, he wouldn't even be a Senator let alone a VEEP possibility.

        1. Until I saw it spelled here this week, I thought it was Mark O'Rubio.

      2. It'll be Rubio. He's popular in Florida, and the Reps need Florida to win.

  5. Dune and LOTR references in the same post, nice.

  6. Wait!

    What does Newsweek think?

  7. RP speaking at the convention, undermining at least half of the GOP platform. Rand on the ticket... Romney would politically benefit more from shooting his dog in the face on live TV.

    1. Pretty much.

      Now, I'd vote for a non-libertarian Republican with Paul on the ticket. But he'd have to at least be passable regarding the war, spending and civil liberties. VPs have very little real influence.

      So really, would anyone here vote Romney/Paul but not Romney/some-milquetoast-VP-candidate?

      1. And I understand Tony -- if he's the Tony we all know and love -- probably wants to imply the Pauls are unelectable nutters.

        I just think RP is like a Roseanne sex tape to the Republican war boner. A Romney/Paul ticket picks up few of his followers while undermining the tingles up the legs of Romney supporters.

        1. RP followers are a total nonissue. Romney thinks he can siphon latinos, an actual relevant constituency, by pairing with Rubio.

          This piece is total fantasy. RP supporters are die-hard idealists, yet can't break the low double digits in a primary? Nonfactors.

          1. Just keep repeating it.

          2. siphon latinos...

            Hey that's your deal!

      2. So really, would anyone here vote Romney/Paul but not Romney/some-milquetoast-VP-candidate?

        Honestly, at this point, I'll vote for anyone that isn't Obama. Purely due to lack of economic activity.

    2. What's the big deal about speaking at the convention? Does that get a big audience compared to the debates that he's spoken at?

      1. For that matter, couldn't he buy an infomercial that'd get a bigger audience?

      2. cough obama cough...2004 cough

        1. But we're talking *Ron* Paul getting the speaking gig, right? Not to sound morbid, but he'll be 80 in 2016. Unless his speaking somehow automatically campaign for Rand for POTUS in 2016/2020.

          I've wondered why Ron Paul has chosen not to run for re-election in the House. Part of me wonders if it's because he saw that he wouldn't get the nomination, but that Romney probably would. That a deal could be struck, that Rand could be given the VP spot and and didn't want to be a member of Congress with his son as the president of the Senate. I don't know. Just a thought. Or he may just be tired of the bullshit in DC. I know I am and I've never set foot there.

          1. "automatically campaigns" I lost an "s" along the way...

  8. Just the last in the unending string of media lies about Ron Paul.

    He won?t deal, we won't support or vote for the Super-salesman of "Islamic Jihad!!" paranoia.

    1. derp, he's a politician. Of course he'll deal. Just like the rest.

  9. BTW, Brian Doherty, why would anyone with a clue about Ron Paul want to buy a book by you about him? This article proves you have NOT done your homework.

    1. ^Love the Paul, hate the Paultard^

      1. +50000000000000

  10. I am voting for Ron Paul and for no one else. I will not vote for anyone who doesn't have the voting record to back his determination for America to have SOUND MONEY. The Republicans have lied too many times so I am only a registered Republican so that I can vote for Ron Paul in our primary. I know plenty of people who believe as I do.

  11. Don't care. Will never vote Romney, even if that means Obama wins.

  12. Vote for me, Grimlock! Me no bozo, me president! Defeat not an option!

    Grimlock: Right for America, Right for you!


  13. Paul-tards are a small subset of Paul voters.

  14. Dude knows he is like totally rocking it!

  15. Now thats what I am talking about dude.

  16. Jim Grant as Fed Chair would carry a lot more weight with me than Rand Paul as VP. That won't do Mittens any good in 2012 but it sure could help if he's running for reelection in 2016.

    1. I read that as Jim Carrey at first.

      He would be the best Fed chair ever.

    2. I'm pretty sure publishing a financial newsletter isn't going to get you a Fed chairmanship.

      Look, I'm okay with Grant and I make a point to trust men with bow ties, but this won't happen.

  17. Mitt Romney is a polite and clever guy with no vision, no charisma, and no real leadership abilities. I can live with that. I have seen all I need of rude idiot charismatic visionary leaders. If the next president sits in the WH and does OMB work while all the real leadership comes from Congress, we will be a lot better off than we have been for a long time.

    1. The problem with you people is always the same...

      You all want a "leader in TOUGH TIMES."

      You'll never be more than a slave.

    2. Which is more retarded: picking a president based on charisma or politeness?

      1. Definitely charisma, dude.

        Politeness is actually a limiting characteristic. There are things a polite person won't do.

        A charismatic person is capable of anything.

    3. but most of the bad stuff has come and will continue to come from Congress... this includes rolling over for the presidency as well

      The one power that has been explicitly given to the executive to use, and use regularly, but practically never in modern times is VETO power. Even executive orders, should rightly be used to undo bad stuff (much like presidential pardons) rather than used to exercise power

      With all this talk about "leadership", this is Ron Paul on what it means strong:

      How can I run for office and say I want to be a weak president? We need a strong president, strong enough to resist the temptation of taking power the President shouldn't have

      1. For example:

        Grover Cleveland used the veto far more often than any president up to that time. In 1887, Cleveland issued his most well-known veto, that of the Texas Seed Bill. After a drought had ruined crops in several Texas counties, Congress appropriated $10,000 to purchase seed grain for farmers there. Cleveland vetoed the expenditure. In his veto message, he espoused a theory of limited government:

      2. I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

      3. (cont'd)

        The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

    4. no vision, no charisma, and no real leadership abilities.
      now that's just stupid, especially the last one. The man was a massive success in business, the Salt Lake games turned okay even without post 9/11 federal help, and even MA had a surplus on his leaving.

      Charisma is highly over-rated; Obama has it and I don't see many here plugging for him. Hell, Hitler and Jim Jones had it, along with a host of TV preachers.

    5. Because Congress is so fucking wonderful and principled?

  18. Ron Paul is in the unfortunate position where he can't torpedo the GOP and shake up the race by running third party becaues that would ruin Rand's career. So if he decides to cash his chips in come convention time by making some deal with Romney for policy concessions, then I would understand and not resent him for it.

    I'll just vote Gary Johnson in November with a clean conscience.

  19. 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.

    I don't think Romney can promise to deliver any of those things with any more certainty than I can.

    1. He can at least promise not to go way in the other direction on these issues as Obushma has.

      However, promises don't mean much, how would Paul hold him to this promise if Romney becomes president?

      1. IF - Dr. Paul could get assurances (I have no idea how....) on not jacking w/ the 2A (via SCOTUS nominees..) easing up on the drug war (specific - MJ...) and making serious reductions in the deficit and fostering economic growth for Americans - I would have no issue with this purported alliance....

        1. Yes, but that's my main point, how could Paul possibly get that assurance?

          Even if Romney promises these things, how does Paul hold him to it?

  20. Oh, and if anybody should team up? It's Santorum and Gingrich.

    If they teamed up, they might give Romney a run for his money.

    1. Gingrich would have to be the one to bow out and his ego wont let him.

      1. It looks like vice-president or nothing at this point.

        The only thing worse than not winning the presidency for him is not winning anything. Hell, Hillary Clinton's an egomaniac too, and she resigned herself to making a deal--to become Secretary of State.

        She might not be the president, but at least she's still in the game.

        Otherwise Gingrich is looking at being a regular on a Sunday morning blowhard show. I suspect he'd rather have a legitimate shot at being vice-president.

        1. I believe one of the legacies of this election will be Noot's slide to irrelevance. Any residual goodwill from his days as Speaker has been drowned out in a cacophony of whining and pettiness. No wonder that not a single person who worked with him is standing with Noot on the campaign trail.

    2. Oil 'em up, put them in some leather pants and let them wrestle in the Turkish fashion to see who gets to be the top...of the ticket.

      I'd pay $100 to see that on pay-per-view.

  21. Compare the 08 campaign videos to now. Our alt. vision (plus Obamas ugly reality) we have come miles with the "R's." More skeptical of foreign interventions and fed debt. The TSA is chafing.

    For now, we have lost ground with the left. They mostly seemed deluded about debt. They are still dreaming up new ways to spend money and freak out about any cuts.

    Again with Mitt, I suspect if we had some carrot/stick and had someone on the inside, a President Romney (he seems to love experimenting) might for instance:

    *make it easier for airports to take over their own security from the TSA.

    *Appoint a more moderate-ish to the fed and experiment with a loose commodities base for currency.

    *turn healthcare over to the states.

    Mitts leadership style seems to be "head of the inner circle." A Rand Paul inside fleshing our ideas out and making the case for them is our best chance.

    1. Romney is a smart, successful businessmen. Running a successful corporation means listening to what other people have to say, including criticisms. That's why he's such a lousy politician, he's willing to change his mind if he realizes that it profits him.

      So in that regard I do think a Paul in his cabinet would be a good thing and could have some real impact on his decisions.

  22. People forget about the Electoral College ... In Kansas, the Republican wins, therefore I could vote for Angela Davis and it wouldn't matter. The most Ron Paul will get from the GOP is a not-prime-time speech; Rand Paul, unless he's as much of a corporatist neo-con as Mitt, Rick, or Newt, isn't going to get spit. I predict Credentials Committee shenanigans to avoid a brokered convention, and then Mitt Romney on the first ballot in a carefully scripted set piece convention. The Santorum/Gingrich crowd will all vote for Mitt - they're certainly not going to vote for Obama.

  23. Threadjack:

    WTF, Europe. WTF.

  24. I actually have some hope for Romney.

    He's not even remotely a social conservative, despite being a Mormon.

    He's too rich to pander too much to corporations. Obama wanted to be president so he could loot the country. I think Romney has purer motives

    And I don't see him rushing to war. He hasn't really used any of the crazy talk of Santorum or Gingrich.

    If he gets elected, Romney probably won't do anything but be a caretaker president. And frankly, after two disasters, that's a good thing to have.

    1. We don't have time for a caretaker President.

      A caretaker President would be business as usual, which means, aside from all the currently odious and destructive policies that would continue, trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

      When the game runs out on borrowing (and monetizing the debt), the damage will be epic. I think a quarter of our GDP vaporizing would be conservative (considering that being forced to a balanced budget would instantly vaporize nearly 10% of GDP by definition).

    2. And smarter than most caretakers.

    3. I think it's a matter of perspective. Standing next to Santorum and Gingrich, Romney looks perfectly palatable. Standing next to Obama, Romney may look like a no-nonsense consultant willing to slice up and clean up government like a company he took over at Bains.

      Standing by himself, or much less next to Paul or Johnson, he still looks like an authoritarian nightmare I couldn't stomach to vote for.

  25. The deal was  axiomatic during the CNN Feb. 22, 2012, unless they were practicing for a porn movie; it was a team tagging

  26. Paul's acolytes insist their man cannot be bought. "Romney wants the ring of power. He wants it so bad," says Doug Wead, a Paul senior adviser. "Negotiating with Ron Paul is very difficult because he doesn't want anything. If he got the ring, he would throw it into Mount Doom."

    lol, Doug Wead is awesome.

    He fends off the same accusations with ease and cites various facts I didn't know, like how while Romney and Santorum fought each other in Michigan, they cooperated in Minnesota against Paul by having Santorum's delegates vote for Romney, how Santorum's people were handing out literature at CPAC stating Ron Paul favored TARP, etc

  27. Well, if Ron Paul's strategy is to create a family dynasty by way of glad-handing establishment Republicans (or Democrats for that matter), then I'm done supporting him.

    1. There's two ways of looking at that. If RP knows he can't win, he can at least try to put those who share his views, into positions of power.

      1. Yes, and if it puts Rand in line to be the nominee in four to eight years, I think it's totally worth it. I've gotten to the point where "integrity" is less important than attaining actual libertarian political results. I'd compromise a little to get more net liberty back. That's why I left the LP, not that any other party offers much of anything either.

    2. Did it never occur to you that the way to move forward in any even semi-cooperative endeavor is to please people who can do things for you? You tell me what you can accomplish without anyone else's help or cooperation.

  28. This is all fine and dandy, but I don't see how Paul can convince his supporters to vote for Romney. If RP was guaranteed a role in the administration, such as Sec of Health and Human services, would the idea of him being able to tear down the beast from the inside, be satisfying enough for RP voters to pull the trigger on Romney? The glass is 5% full, not 95% empty.

  29. No republican would ever trust Ron Paul enough to put him anywhere near their administration. You can tell Time is a liberal rag. The republicans know Paul sticks to his convictions regardless of who is in office and it is one of the reasons they hate him so much. He dared to chastise the great Ronald Regan; can you imagine what Paul would do with Romney? As most libertarians know firsthand, party repubs hate all forms of dessention. Remember the 11th commandment of theirs? Thou shalt not speak ill of another republican? Ron Paul has gone against republicans way too often to be important enough to broker a deal with, especially since repubs know he can't guarentee his delegates or his supporters in the fall.

  30. The problem with all this is, Romney can not be trusted. His commitment to anything goes as far as the polling numbers, or perhaps in extreme, to the projected polling numbers.

    RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!

  31. OK sometimes you jsut have to sit and wonder lol.

  32. I was one of the 12,749 who voted for RP in Mississippi on Tuesday. I think it's pretty safe to say that I'll be voting for Gary Johnson in November.

  33. Can one of the resident Paulinistas answer a question for me?
    What the heck is with the
    R[EVOL]ution/red backwards LOVE thing?

  34. Ron Paul has made such inroads this election cycle. It would be a shame for his base to revolt when RP clearly knows what needs to be done to turn the trajectory of politics back to a constitution-based system. It won't be done overnight, people, but it will get done if the base is solidified and removes the current constitution-bashing president. If his base turns their back on RP's "deals" then they can't be taken seriously in 2016.

  35. So Mr. Paul is making a deal with the devil? I'm so shocked! How could this happen? LOL

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.