As Katrina noted earlier today, last night, Rick Santorum’s campaign suggested that there may be a covert alliance between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, especially in view of their behavior at the debate in Arizona. Such a deal would presumably involve Ron Paul attacking Santorum, as he has quite frequently, especially on Santorum’s spending record, so that Romney can avoid further lowering his own favorability ratings.
Paul’s spokesman denies this, noting that they have spent millions on four television ads attacking Romney, but there does seem to be something, prima facie, to their conduct during debates, if one assumes that the alliance would preclude Paul from criticizing Romney in debates. In the previous seven debates, going back to the January 7 New Hampshire debate, Ron Paul has only attacked Mitt Romney once.
In the NBC debate on January 23, after Romney had explained that he considered Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz an act of war, and would respond appropriately, Ron Paul eagerly broke in to offer his opinion. He said:
But I wanted to get involved in the discussion. Because the question was, you know, would you go to war? And Mitt said he would — he would go to war. But you have to think about the preliminary act that might cause them to want to close the Straits of Hormuz, and that`s the blockade. We’re blockading them. Can you imagine what we would do if somebody blockaded the Gulf of Mexico? That would be an act of war. So the act of war has already been committed and this is a retaliation.
Paul’s argument aside, he does, unprompted, directly take on and criticize Romney’s bellicose response.
Interestingly, though, Paul was also offered another chance in the debate to attack Romney, and decided not to: Moderator Brian Williams asked Romney if he was worried about being considered “insufficiently conservative,” and then, later, asked Paul if “the two men in the middle [Romney and Santorum] [were] insufficiently conservative for you.” Rather than attacking either of them, Paul responded, “I think the problem is, is nobody has defined what being conservative means,” and then didn’t deign to mention either of them for the rest of his answer.
Paul’s kid-gloved treatment of Romney in the debates so far doesn’t necessarily say anything about their relationship, but it seems like, of late, Paul has been notably kind to the race’s front-runner.
If Paul thinks that anyone is blockading the Straights of Hormuz, then he's even nuttier than I've been led to believe.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTurn off your TV and put down the Koolaid bud.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe Ron Paul is just "consistent" in his conservatism.
Ann Coulter sheds some of her light on this issue today....and when Ms, Coulter is on, she can put a gaping hole in the bullseye.
"What's their problem with Romney" External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm sure if Romney had successfully beaten Kennedy for the US Senate, Paul would have found him as objectionable as he finds Santorum. But the fact that Romney never held federal office means he never had the opportunity to commit the constitutional transgressions that Paul so vociferously condemns. In addition, despite his protestations to the contrary, Paul has no intention of winning the nomination. He wants to presents a strong challenge and carry influence. Santorum presents greater threat to that endeavor than Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRon Paul is no dope. He knows that his son would never be offered the VP job based on only 2 years in the Senate. And moreover, even if it were offered, why would Rand Paul would want it?
Even if clueless Romney were to win the White House, he'd go down as the President who oversaw the collapse of the sclerotic American fiscal illusion.
Romney's a stupid, feckless deck-chair-on-the-Titantic re-arranger. A political Pool Boy Hack, just like Obama...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSteve,
You don't honestly think that Mitt is going to offer the VP slot to anyone not named either Chris Christie or Mark Rubio, do you?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd why shouldn't Mr. Paul align sub-rosa with Mr. Romney?
Gov. Romney is more likely to prevail in the general than any other GOP candidate and for Mr. Paul that means a real chance at policy input.
Specifically, the Federal Reserve--Gov. Romney isn't obliged by past office or inclination to serve the monetarist passions of the get along crowd in U.S. politics.
Romney is also tabla rasa vis a vis the Dept. of Education and Dept. of Commerce-why should anyone not assume he'd truncate those functions or eliminate them in favor of a new alignment.
On the less tangible and perhaps esoteric'plaine', there's Romney's antecedent Mormon origins that may appeal to Mr. Paul.
Mormons are self sufficient. They've suffered under persecution by over bearing Federal authority and mindless, traditional Christian animus expressed and actualized. Mr. Paul may have assessed Mr. Romney as a man that has a 'Liberty' mindset submerged in his inner man.
Gingrich, Santorum, (Perry before) all are an anathema to Paul.
Romney may be the unsoiled bride for Mr. Paul.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy would he? Paul's hoping to be the last not-Romney standing, so he needs to attack the other not-Romneys.
Also, it's significant that Romney hasn't straight-up lied about Paul or his positions; that can keep a relationship friendly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRecently someone directly asked Paul why he seemed to be more friendly to Romney. He stated that he was the only one left with actual management experience.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlso, my take is that - although the gulf is wide between Mitt and Paul, Mitt is less big government than Sant or Newt.
"Also, my take is that - although the gulf is wide between Mitt and Paul, Mitt is less big government than Sant or Newt."
Are we talking about the same Mitt?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo was it wrong of Santroum (and Bachmann) to attack Perry rather than Romney back in the fall? No, wait, it couldn't have been, because everything Rick does is right....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet's get a real conspiracy theory ginning here. Tonight I had a long drive, so I tuned around the radio. Voila, Mark Levine, wrapping up a two-hour soliloquy on how Romney and Paul are actually Bad Batman and Evil Robin, combining together because they are non-conservatives who want to screw REAL CONSERVATIVES, like Newt and Rick and me and you. It apparently was a real doozy of a detective effort. Unfortunately, I got home before he quit selling his latest book and brought on the first raving telephone caller. Oh well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLevin is a neocon hack. Unhinged to say the least.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI suspect Paul knows he's not going to win, but wants to make darn sure he has a say in this election. He knows he has the support of the youth and independent vote. He's not going to openly sell out his principles and lose their support by backing out and endorsing another candidate. But, he also wants to make sure a not-Obama gets into office. The best thing to do then is to just go easy on the one guy he tacitly wants to win besides himself--Romney--so his supporters won't have such a sour taste when they have to ultimately vote for Mitt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse