The Judge on WaPo's Paul/Romney article

[r3volutionpaul91]

I don't believe Ron Paul wants to be VP but, Rand might. Sometimes it is best to be pragmatic. Rand as VP would lead him to the White House. It is a movement it takes time to change hearts and minds.

we may not have that much "time" left.

 

[jolynna]

The Washington Post is Axelrod's fav.

He and WaPo WISH THEY could lump Ron Paul AND Romney.

Anyone who believes in the principles of EITHER Ron Paul or Mr. Romney should be going ewwww and needing a throw-up bucket.

MR. Romney

"I will insist on a military so powerful no one would ever think of challenging it.” (http://www.minnpost.com/ericblack/2...ful_no_one_would_ever_think_of_challenging_it)

Romney says: 'Obama NOT keeping 10K-30K troops in Iraq a SIGNATURE FAILURE http://youtu.be/OwfLS6WYUjo

'YES, I would sign NDAA' says Romney. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1yY3NCiMVQ

Their VIEWS are incompatible.

They are on opposite poles and repugnant to each side. By associating them together, WaPo wants people turned OFF of whichever side they support.

 

[FindLiberty]

OK then, a Paul/Paul GOP ticket sounds like the smart way to go...

Since Rand is already in the Senate, he should be the VP Paul
and Ron would, of course, be the POTUS Paul.

 

[WilliamC]

Not only is this possible, it's inevitable. Let's face it folks. Ron always makes a point about forming coalitions. To have long term success we have to do the same. It's no different then Jefferson and Hamilton both working for the colonist against the British. Newt is obviously someone you can't work with and Santorum is borderline delusional. That leaves Romney and the establishment. If the establishment wants to remain in existence they need to win, therefore, they need to bring us into the fold. If we want a long term presence, we need seats at the table. Even if Paul wins the primaries, look for them to seek compromise with the Romney camp in order to secure victory.

I would sincerely like for Ron Paul to sweep the other contenders aside and win the GOP nomination with >2/3rds supermajority, but I doubt that is going to happen.

I would sincerely like for Ron Paul to win 50% + 1 of the delegates and win the nomination outright without having to go to a brokered convention, but the odds are against us.

I would like to see Ron Paul have enough delegates at a brokered convention to win the nomination, and I think this is the strategy Ron Paul's campaign is working on, but even this is by no means a forgone conclusion.

I would be willing to bet that >99% of the Ron Paul supporters reading this would be agreeable and fully supportive of Ron Paul in any of the above scenarios.

But, what happens if Ron Paul fails to garner enough delegates to win the nomination in a brokered convention? What should he do then?

Coalitions are the next best strategy to get his issues advanced, coalitions and retaining enough influence to make it easier for future Ron Paul Republican's to get elected at the State and National level.

Unfortunately for many supporting Ron Paul 'from the left' as it were Ron Paul cannot achieve these last two goals without remaining in the Republican party, and that's where he will likely lose some support.

It's not as if Ron Paul is going to give in to get power, but I would rather see him in a position where he can continue to grow his power and influence within the Republican party, as bad as that is, after this election is over should he not win.

I think he will do more good in terms of returning the FedGov to a more Constitutional role in the Republican party than he would trying to establish a 3rd party, but if he can start raising 10's of millions from Independents I'm willing to reconsider this.

If he were popular enough to start a 3rd party, he'd be beating the likes of Santorum at the very least.

 

[AhuwaleKaNaneHuna]

THANK YOU Jollynna, for reminding those who are slobbering all over Romney wanting to find reasons and excuses to vote for him, what they really would be voting for-

The Washington Post is Axelrod's fav.

MR. Romney

"I will insist on a military so powerful no one would ever think of challenging it.” (http://www.minnpost.com/ericblack/2...ful_no_one_would_ever_think_of_challenging_it)

Romney says: 'Obama NOT keeping 10K-30K troops in Iraq a SIGNATURE FAILURE http://youtu.be/OwfLS6WYUjo

'YES, I would sign NDAA' says Romney. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1yY3NCiMVQ

Their VIEWS are incompatible.

They are on opposite poles and repugnant to each side. By associating them together, WaPo wants people turned OFF of whichever side they support.

TroySmith said-

Let's face it folks. Ron always makes a point about forming coalitions

Face your delusion? Um no. Paul has been in Congress for 10 terms.

During that time, tell me what snake in the grass did Paul form a coalition with, to further an agenda of his?

What after his vast history as a statesmen and Presidential candidate, has you believing it is within Pauls character to want to get in on a Romney ticket?

What you need to face is that enough of Pauls support, would never vote for Romney no matter what and it's enough who wouldn't that Obama gets his second term.

In the mean time, all of you Romney suck ups are tarnishing Pauls name and reputation by helping WaPo put them in bed together.

 

[TroySmith]

THANK YOU Jollynna, for reminding those who are slobbering all over Romney wanting to find reasons and excuses to vote for him, what they really would be voting for-







Face your delusion? Um no. Paul has been in Congress for 10 terms.

During that time, tell me what snake in the grass did Paul form a coalition with, to further an agenda of his?

What after his vast history as a statesmen and Presidential candidate, has you believing it is within Pauls character to want to get in on a Romney ticket?

What you need to face is that enough of Pauls support, would never vote for Romney no matter what and it's enough who wouldn't that Obama gets his second term.

In the mean time, all of you Romney suck ups are tarnishing Pauls name and reputation by helping WaPo put them in bed together.

He's worked with Barney Frank, of all people, on the Fed. Coalitions.

The delusion is trying to win the battle instead of the war. The war is changing the minds and hearts of American's to ensure a free republic has a secure existence. It's like the Dr. says "Freedom brings people together". To win the war, you have to first put yourself in position to have success, then methodically start working to achieve your goals. We are already winning seats at the state and local levels, we are garnering national attention, and should we not get the presidential nomination, we have the opportunity to have significant influence at the national level. If Paul does win the primaries, we are going to need Romney's base to beat Obama. It's basic math.

 

[AhuwaleKaNaneHuna]

He's worked with Barney Frank, of all people, on the Fed. Coalitions.

The delusion is trying to win the battle instead of the war. The war is changing the minds and hearts of American's to ensure a free republic has a secure existence. It's like the Dr. says "Freedom brings people together". To win the war, you have to first put yourself in position to have success, then methodically start working to achieve your goals. We are already winning seats at the state and local levels, we are garnering national attention, and should we not get the presidential nomination, we have the opportunity to have significant influence at the national level. If Paul does win the primaries, we are going to need Romney's base to beat Obama. It's basic math.

Those are instances where he worked with people who were after the same goal, working towards the same goal.

That does not apply to a supposed coalition with Romney- AT ALL.

Paul does not coalese with people to help them get what they want, which is against his principles, to get what he wants. THIS is what Paul does not have a history of. I see no reason why he would start now.

Paul would not help a Romney, whose Policies he disagrees with, get elected, just so he could be appointed to something else. THAT is not his style- to negotiate anything against his principles.

 

[acptulsa]

Not only is this possible, it's inevitable. Let's face it folks. Ron always makes a point about forming coalitions. To have long term success we have to do the same. It's no different then Jefferson and Hamilton both working for the colonist against the British. Newt is obviously someone you can't work with and Santorum is borderline delusional. That leaves Romney and the establishment. If the establishment wants to remain in existence they need to win, therefore, they need to bring us into the fold. If we want a long term presence, we need seats at the table. Even if Paul wins the primaries, look for them to seek compromise with the Romney camp in order to secure victory.

Yeah, Ron the 434-1 coalition builder...

No, it isn't inevitable. What is inevitable is us flooding the convention with delegates. That's what's inevitable. What is inevitable is them trying to keep us from winning states so they can claim our attempt to make him the nominee once the delegates (otherwise known as 'us') are unbound is not legitimate. Which is why we need all the votes we can get, to defuse this argument.

But 'The Establishment' has made it clear they wish no coalition with us. They want us to cry uncle and call it a coalition, but they want no meaningful coalition with us. We haven't heard hide nor hair of a single concession on war, sound money, or even reduced government. Not one.

This is coalition building? This is isolationism on their part, and nothing less.

 

[jolynna]

Yeah, Ron the 434-1 coalition builder...

No, it isn't inevitable. What is inevitable is us flooding the convention with delegates. That's what's inevitable. What is inevitable is them trying to keep us from winning states so they can claim our attempt to make him the nominee once the delegates (otherwise known as 'us') are unbound is not legitimate. Which is why we need all the votes we can get, to defuse this argument.

But 'The Establishment' has made it clear they wish no coalition with us. They want us to cry uncle and call it a coalition, but they want no meaningful coalition with us. We haven't heard hide nor hair of a single concession on war, sound money, or even reduced government. Not one.

This is coalition building? This is isolationism on their part, and nothing less.

They sure haven't come courting.

SORRY..."At least I'm not OBAMA." offers what?

 

[flynn]

It would be the biggest irony in the world, if Ron becomes the Fed chairman come next november.