NYT on Paul/Romney relationship: Amid Rivalry, Friendship Blossoms on the Campaign Trail

[Captain Shays]

I'd rather have Romney be president than Bush, Obama, Santorum or Gingrich but I would NEVER vote for him unless Paul was his VP. Romney reminds me of a more moral Bill Clinton. There's not a chance that he (or Clinton) would be a good president, but compared to the abject failures of recent administrations -and ONLY by the distressingly low bar that they set- he wouldn't be an abomination.

The low bar is an abomination. The candidates it gives us is an abomination. The WHOLE SYSTEM is an abomination. OK maybe I agree with Romney on the surface wouldn't be as bad a Gingrich, especially Santorum and doubly especially to Obama but it's really bad nonetheless

 

[Schiff_FTW]

Romney is bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs and that Paul now appears to be in league with him makes me sick.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Romney is probably a decent civil person. I don't doubt that. Ron and Romney get along personally, some of you will just have to deal with that.

YOU need to deal with the fact that Paul has already said his & Romney's positions are very different & there will be no compromises, the word "compromise" doesn't exist in Paul's dictioanry & there won't be any Romney/Paul thing no matter how much Romney-trolls beg for it!

Romney/Paul would crush Obama in the general. There is no doubt of that.

Who gives a sh!t! It's NOT about "crushing Obama", it's not about party-politics, it's about advancing liberty & none of that will be achieved so long as it's not Paul (or some other honest liberty-minded person)

If Romney made policy compromises between his positions and Ron's, not outright changes, he could be acceptable. Like pull out of Afghanistan on day 1, but not close the bases worldwide. Full transparent audit of the fed, but not call for ending. Repeal NDAA/patriot act. Pledge to go to congress for declaration of war. Those are compromises that might work and really wouldn't cost Romney or Paul their base.

Oh yeah, he'd not only agree to all that but follow through with it, right? Any person with a half a brain will realize that Romney can't be trusted, he'll do & say what is expedient & then retract his promises, he's the epitome of everything that's wrong with politics & government & as for the "power" of the vice-presidency goes -

"My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."
-John Adams

Sorry people, but this isn't a cult and Ron isn't a cult leader, compromises are going to need to be made. Romney is better than a CFR globalist or a social zealot.

Sorry troll, it's not a Romney-cult either, this is about advancing liberty & a self-centered flip-flopping liberal can't be trusted to do that

Why don't mods ban these trolls, I've seen people getting banned for petty reasons such as asking simple questions & what not & some trolls keep trolling & go around saying "we're gonna lose, we're gonna lose", spreading negativity within the whole movement & promoting Romney, a lying hypocritical scumbag of a politician, as a "nice person", & they don't even get a warning? Are you kidding me?

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Romney is bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs and that Paul now appears to be in league with him makes me sick.

I still don't believe Paul is "in league with him", I've seen him defend the likes of Barney Frank & Boehnar & what not, it's just that he's a very nice person to begin with but IF (& that's a big if) he decides to compromise with Romney or any other political hack, he'll be deserted by most of his (except for Romney-trolls here, of course) & I'm sure he knows this more than anyone & that's I don't think he'll compromise, he doesn't do that sort of stuff!

Yes, anyone who can't see the money-trail is either blind or dumb just as Obama-supporters were last election!

 

[slamhead]

This NYT message has been approved by the RNC. The RNC is worried. It is no coincidence this article is coming out after the NOBP moneybomb.

 

[KingNothing]

Why don't mods ban these trolls, I've seen people getting banned for petty reasons such as asking simple questions & what not & some trolls keep trolling & go around saying "we're gonna lose, we're gonna lose", spreading negativity within the whole movement & promoting Romney, a lying hypocritical scumbag of a politician, as a "nice person", & they don't even get a warning? Are you kidding me?

69360 is not a troll. He's a loyal Paul supporter and a poster who has shown himself to be an intelligent man time and time again. You might not agree with him in this instance, but you should at least offer him the level of respect that he deserves. Anything less than that flies in the face of the meta-message that Paul delivers every single day.

 

[Fredom101]

I think he's just as bad as them.. Remember the debate where Willard said "I'd sign the NDAA with article 1021, no prob.. We need tools like this to fight terrorism" (paraphrasing).. He said without even thinking twice.. Like there was no issue there at all. Romney doesn't want to be president, he wants to be king!

Agree with this. How different are Romney's ideas than the rest? That's what it comes down to.

 

[Schiff_FTW]

I still don't believe Paul is "in league with him", I've seen him defend the likes of Barney Frank & Boehnar & what not, it's just that he's a very nice person to begin with but IF (& that's a big if) he decides to compromise with Romney or any other political hack, he'll be deserted by most of his (except for Romney-trolls here, of course) & I'm sure he knows this more than anyone & that's I don't think he'll compromise, he doesn't do that sort of stuff!

Well what do you call it when the Paul campaign has a Romney supporter in charge of advertising, and (coincidentally I'm sure) refuses to put out ads that might actually help Paul to Romney's detriment? Such as the issue of electability, really the only issue most GOP voters care about, which the Paul campaign has completely dropped the ball on to Romney's benefit.

 

[jkob]

I don't doubt Romney is a nice guy on a personal level. He's also smart enough to know he needs us if he's going to win in a brokered convention and in the general election. I'm not going to vote for him tho.

 

[Plague-of-Locutus]

Some of you forget one of the most important things that Ron Paul talks about when addressing getting things done in the government: Coalitions. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney can completely disagree on a majority of topics, but come together in cooperation under one common idea such as eliminating their GOP competition from the current race or put people back to work and fix the economy in general. They can work together.

A future Romney / Paul or Paul / Romney ticket would be a shining example of what Ron Paul preaches without abandoning principles or compromising as some of you seem to be inferring. Who knows, maybe it would start to catch on in future elections with more mixed tickets.

 

[Shane Harris]

Wow. Romney's actually....a genuinely nice person?

a nice guy who insulted us just as much as anyone 4 years ago. He is being political. He is jealous. He wants the youth and enthusiasm we have.

 

[Shane Harris]

go to the 4 minute mark for ron paul references

 

[mosquitobite]

I also found the part about Gingrich odd (about not having to vote for the budget deal). This would have been back in the 90's. According to Dr Paul, Gingrich mentioned he didn't want Dr Paul's people calling him. Who would have been those people in the 90s???

Anyone??

 

[aloneinthewilderness]

Mitt Romney is not the devil.

Just because a man is not Ron Paul does not mean he's evil. Hell, just because Mitt does what is politically expedient does not mean he's evil. Mitt is, most likely, a decent, successful, man with political ambitions. To my knowledge, Ron Paul is the only man in modern American politics who fits that description and is also guided entirely by principle. And it's why no politician other than Ron Paul has ever been worthy of the highest office in my lifetime.

But we shouldn't just bombastically claim that there is a sinister motive behind every action made by someone who is not Ron Paul. Really, that mentality paralyzes us.

I didn't say that Romney was the Devil, I compared Romney to the Devil. I do believe that any move he makes is calculated, and some may even be sinister.

 

[Schiff_FTW]

Anyone??

Paul's had a national base of supporters ever since he first ran for Congress in the 70's. No doubt his 1988 LP presidential run raised his profile considerably as well.

 

[jolynna]

I have no problem with being cordial and friendly to the opposition. It speaks of high character on Ron's part and I think it is smart on Mitt's part. Like they say, keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

Rep + for the part of your post I made bold.

Brilliantly said.

 

[wgadget]

Some of you forget one of the most important things that Ron Paul talks about when addressing getting things done in the government: Coalitions. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney can completely disagree on a majority of topics, but come together in cooperation under one common idea such as eliminating their GOP competition from the current race or put people back to work and fix the economy in general. They can work together.

A future Romney / Paul or Paul / Romney ticket would be a shining example of what Ron Paul preaches without abandoning principles or compromising as some of you seem to be inferring. Who knows, maybe it would start to catch on in future elections with more mixed tickets.

This.^^

Broad, general question: When Ron Paul talks about COALITIONS, with whom is he referring to?

 

[jolynna]

Romney is indeed a genuinely nice guy. I don't know what there isn't to believe about it. Doesn't mean his politics are good.

NICE people don't consider unconstitutionally slaughtering innocent bystanders (collateral damage) in the middle east being "TOO TIMID with Muslims".

No liberty lover (and respecting the liberty of OTHERS is the ultimate of NICE) would proudly proclaim that they support NDAA and justify that stance. IF NDAA is such a good thing, why did Romney say neither "he" nor "Obama" would "abuse" it? What is the PURPOSE of a bill with clauses that give the chief executive POWER TO ABUSE an American citizen?

In political language, "I won't do it" & "Trust me" means "duck and cover". Especially when delivered with a sincere smile.

People are fooled by Romney because he uses words in a way that "sanitizes" his agenda. "Keep America Strong" sounds better than spending MORE money "we DON'T have on" a military that already invests more on weapons and soldiers than MOST OF THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED.

According to Romney, the U.S.A. should have "gone after that drone". That is a sanitized way of saying "gone to war with". Which is being pretty darn callous about shedding the blood of others (a risk neither HE nor any of HIS children EVER would expose themselves to).

Nothing is more dangerous than a politician who can describe horrific deeds in a way that makes those actions sound as normal as a "daily drive to work". Especially if the delivery is sincere and you are being looked straight in the eyes. Pfft.

Victims that are happy and unaware before the strike make the easiest prey. Ask any snake.

 

[wgadget]

Romney is malleable, which is his best and worst trait. In the hands of a master craftsman like Ron Paul, he could have potential.

 

[Matthanuf06]

You're joking right? If we elect Romney NDAA will still be in place, along with no audit of the Fed, we'll still be policing the world, handing out HUGE chunks of corporate welfare, maybe bailing out more banks and corporations, and we'll grow deeper in debt. I guess other than that......

I certainly didn't say he'd be a great potus, and I definitely didn't say he'd be better than Paul. He wouldnt be and he won't. I did say he'd be the best one in awhile, and he would be. The bar is pretty darn low.