From the Daily Mail’s Toby Harnden:
After tonight’s debate, in which Ron Paul and Mitt Romney repeatedly attacked Rick Santorum over his 16-year record in Congress, the former US Senator for Pennsylvania hinted that something nefarious was going on.
“You have to ask Congressman Paul and Governor Romney what they’ve got going together,” Santorum told reporters in the spin room in Mesa, Arizona. “Their commercials look a lot alike and so do their attacks.”
Santorum’s top strategist John Brabender went even further, charging that the two men had “joined forces” and were coordinating attacks against his man
“Clearly there’s a tag team strategy between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. For all I know, Mitt Romney might be considering Ron Paul as his running mate. Clearly there is now an alliance between those two and you saw that certainly in the debate.”
Last month, Santorum had hinted that Paul was being easier on Romney than he was on the other candidates. When I asked the Paul national campaign chair Jesse Benton about it at the time, he said, “We have four different TV commercials calling Mitt Romney a flip-flopper that we’ve spent millions of dollars running.”
Guys, sometimes you lose a debate. It happens. But sour grapes make bad whine (sorry). Add in a conspiracy theory and you've got a real winner.
My guess is that I have a better chance to be Romney's veep pick than Paul. If Mitt gets the nom, he'll obviously select a reliable, attractive conservative like Rubio. The guy with the Dennis Kucinich foreign policy is not going to be on the ticket.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd thus the Santorum people out themselves for the lunatics that they are.
Romney. In an unholy conspiracy with Paul.
Whereby Paul will become Romney's running mate, in exchange for being his attack dog.
Good lord.
The Santorum people need to go back home. Stop your pathetic idiotic delusional self-pity.
You're going to lose because you should lose on the merits.
To whit:
You are not a conservative. You are an economic illiterate. Your tax plans propose to ACCELERATE the deficits that we are currently running. You endorsed Specter over Toomey. You loved nothing better than to dispense pork when you were in office. You voted for NCLB. You lived in NoVa, not PA as you swore you did. You are a hypocrite who fraudulently billed a PA school district a lot of money for home schooling.
Other than that, yeah, he's the real conservative, alright.
What is with this conceit that Santorum is clearly, CLEARLY, the best candidate so that any losses simply show that the world is an evil EVIL place.
Honestly.
Take your pathetic self and go home, Santorum. This campaign has been such a windfall for him -- it will give him something to moan and whinge about for the rest of his life. Oh the injustices that were done to him, oh the crime that the dumb public is so blind that they wouldn't coronate as a perfect human being as him.
Good lord, what a world-view. Especially for a self-professed Christian. I always thought being a Christian began and ended with humility.
We're not interested in your self-pity, Santorum. Go away.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust when I'm resigned to voting for Romney in the general, along comes something that would be even more of a dealbreaker than the enthusiastic support of Romneycare.
Having Romney in the general would tempt me into just staying home, but having Paul on the ticket would make me vote for Obama...at least I'd be voting for the ticket that had no problem with sending in the SEALs to shoot Bin Laden.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>no problem with sending in the SEALs to shoot Bin Laden.
You do realize that is what Paul wanted to do IN THE FIRST PLACE, and not go off on some nation building exercise like Bush and the rest of the republicans.
People have been brainwashed by the neocons into a very distorted view of any policy except "bomb more brown people now".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm surprised he didn't accuse him of having a deal with the devil….
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Rick camp needs to bottle up Angry Ricky again. He can't do "angry" so he should stay away from being defensive ("I'm a victim") and setting up bogeymen (making excuses). He's easily the most socially conservative candidate, he needs to move on from there and make the case why he will be fiscally conservative. I'm worried he can't make that case, since he seems to be a "Solving Problems with Government" guy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThey need to put a lid on the wife as well. She comes across horribly in interviews.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf it's Thursday, it must be Santorum's PR guys whining about something else being "unfair."
Last month it was "Romney's attack ads!" Last week it was "we're being outspent!" Yesterday it was that mean ol Drudge diggin' up the past. Then, the media was conspiring to avoid talking about Romney's Mormon beliefs ("Why o why won't somebody talk about the fact that Mitt's a Mormon?!?!?") Today, Ron Paul won't attack Romney in a debate because they have some super secret deal to make Ron Paul the Pope of Greenwich Village or something.
I hear fewer excuses from my kids.
Santorum lost the debate badly. He and his people should get over it and stop the o-so-constant whining.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum, like Newt, is going about reinforcing his negatives.
Last night, he (1) engaged in the Gore-ian body language and semi-shrill tone that makes him look less than Presidential, and (2) while improved on the Social Issues questions, goes on too long, and too passionately about them (often on tangential issues) which reinforces the: "this guy is a bible nut" narrative.
This article adds Santorum throwing in some conspiracy theory whining. Meanwhile, Santorum has ads out there (particularly on radio) saying that Romney would be a "disaster" and then misrepresenting positions -- nothing unusual in terms of attack ads, but also making him hypocritical in complaining about attacks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can't imagine Romney picking as awful a VP candidate as Ron Paul (though it should be noted I also couldn't imagine the GOP picking as awful a P candidate as Mitt Romney). But Rand Paul would actually be a pretty interesting pick.
Though I can't recall the principled VP and unprincipled P concept ever really working out - they usually just look awkward trying to defend each other's records. Think McCain-Palin, Dole-Kemp, Dukakis-Bentsen, Bush-Quayle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is the party that selected Sarah Palin. Nothing would surprise me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePaul's a shrewd candidate and no one's fool. He's there to promote his agenda and the best he can hope for is a prime speaking spot at the convention and some behind the scenes rangling over his delegates.
Personally I doubt he has the slightest respect for Romney as a candidate but he knows that to go all out against him would work against his goals. Paul doesn't expect Newt or Santorum to be in a similar place in Tampa so he can have fun with them all he likes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh, you doubt it, huh?
I guess you missed all those articles about how the two are actually quite close. Their wives are friends and Romney offered up his airplane and summer house to Paul when Paul was stranded in New Hampshire.
Gotta love know it all commenters!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSince you may know more than other know-it-all commenters, Blackhawks, I'm wondering if you can help provide some back up to the story that Paul and Romney's wives are 'friends' and that the couples are 'quite close'.
I've tried to find some info on this friendship on the web, other than this tidbit from the NYTimes - an offer that the Pauls declined:
'When Mr. Paul’s campaign jet broke down last year in Wolfeboro, N.H., Mr. Romney’s wife, Ann, offered to let Mr. Paul, an aide and one of his granddaughters stay the night at their summer home on Lake Winnipesaukee. When Mr. Romney arrived later, he offered his jet to take them home to Texas. Mr. Paul, not wanting to impose, was grateful but declined both offers.'
(Frankly, if the Obamas were stranded in TX near the Bush compound, I'm pretty sure the Bushes would be gracious enough to make a similar offer of assistance, but I don't know that would make a Bush/Obama social alliance 'quite close' or 'friends' in the way that your comment suggests. So I'm intrigued.)
Other than that, there were mostly unsubstantiated comments on the Paul/Romney friendship from some bloggers on the web. If you can point me to some of all those articles available that you have read (hopefully not unnamed sources!) - I'd appreciate it. And thanks!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is the biggest trumped up rumor/lie of the campaign season.
Paul HAS attacked Romney on several occasions.
The deal is that ALL the non-Romney have been attacking each other more than they have attacked Romney directly because they are all trying to be the one to get the non-Romney vote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOnce the whining begins and the tin foil breaks out , it's usually a sign of a campaign on the downswing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't recall Rick Perry or Tim Pawlenty whining when they had terrible debates. They took it like real men. Petite lady Michelle Bachmann showed more fortitude than Santorum when the going got rough.
Santorum apparently expected everyone to lie down and play patty cake .Tough questions that flummox him are considered mudslinging and bullying.
He's clearly not strong enough to go against Obama and he's already telegraphed his weak spots.
Ron Paul challenged Santorum on his record and he couldn't defend himself , so Santorum breaks out the crying towel and blames Romney. Geez.
Would a Romney-Rand Paul ticket be too clever by half? And, would that alienate even more social conservatives?
Romney does pretty well with Jewish voters. Would a man named Paul on a Romney ticket, undermine that Jewish support for Romney?
I thought - and still continue to think - that a swing-stater like McDonnell, or Portman is more likely to benefit Romney should he win the nomination. But a Paul on the ticket would be interesting - possibly beneficial and possibly horribly detrimental.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI like McDonnell. Portman would be an excellent choice if your looking for a way to make Romney look fun and exciting.
I do think if the GE prospects looked bad enough (say he is losing to Obama by 10 or 15 points by primaries end) you maybe roll the dice with Ron Paul.
Rubio wouldn't be a bad choice but I think it would be a bad career move for Marco and I hope he turns down the position.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, McDonnell has to be the heavy favorite, right? Social conservative. Popular governor in a swing state that is a must have for Republicans.
That's assuming Rubio turns it down as he keeps saying.
Making nice with the Pauls is just smart politics. We need those libertarians to turn out in November. Give both Pauls speaking slots at the convention. Put Rand in prime time. Get Rand to stump for you in swing states with a lot of libertarians i.e. New Hampshire & New Mexico.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"But a Paul on the ticket would be interesting - possibly beneficial and possibly horribly detrimental."
Just can't see it happening, though it would be fun for political junkies like us. Rubio is the obvious pick for Romney - young, handsome, ethnic, not demonizable, highly acceptable to the conservatives who are supposedly so sour on Romney, big state, swing state. What's not to like? And I hardly think he would turn down the chance for national exposure, unless there's some horrendous skeleton in a horrendous closet.
If Santorum gets the nom (still very possible, despite the last few days) somebody noticeably moderate and calm is called for, like Daniels. Don't think Rubio is such a great fit because Santorum would need somebody plausibly closer to the center.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse