Will Romney Go for Ron Paul’s Vote? asks Jim Antle

NACBA

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
784
Will Romney Go for Ron Paul’s Vote? asks Jim Antle

Courting realists and libertarians could give him an edge against other establishment types—if he's willing to try.
7896710796_2e625dfbf8_z-554x414.jpg


“I want to be president,” Mitt Romney told top Republican donors, who soon had this declaration spreading like wildfire through the media.

Romney’s desire to be president is no secret. What was less clear was whether he was done actively trying to fulfill this ambition.

After all, this runs counter to months of comments Romney has made in public suggesting he was unlikely to run. Many party donors and operatives viewed Romney 2016 as at best a contingency plan if Jeb Bush decided not to run and Chris Christie imploded. Barring an unforeseen setback, Bush is all but running for the nomination, with an ambitious plan to raise $100 million to scare potential rivals away. Christie also still seems interested in giving it a go and is no worse off than he’s been in the months since the New Jersey traffic lane closures scandal.

Yet reversals of publicly stated positions is nothing new for Romney. The former Massachusetts governor is also trying to be Bush’s unforeseen setback. His comments will freeze a certain number of donors in place, keeping them from signing up too quickly with Bush’s campaign.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/will-romney-go-for-ron-pauls-vote/
 
Romney could get up in front of the country today and say he wants to abolish the State, and I still wouldn't vote for him. The man is known for lying and I could not believe him.
 
During the campaign for the nomination, Romney was generally hawkish. But he was also socially friendly with Ron Paul to a much greater degree than the other candidates, and he successfully sought Rand Paul’s endorsement. In his pre-endorsement conversation with the younger Paul, Romney sought to assure him there was some daylight between his foreign policy and George W. Bush’s.
 
What I don't understand is why the Republican candidates are actually telling the truth about their hawkishness. I mean, people who voted for Lincoln probably didn't think there would be a civil war, Woodrow Wilson campaigned on a promise to keep us out of Europe, Roosevelt never campaigned on a war with Japan, Nixon won because voters thought he'd bring a swift end to the War in Vietnam, George W. Bush won by being against nation-building, and Obama won by being against the Iraq War.

It seems like the openly hawkish candidate loses, so why don't the Republicans lie?
 
What I don't understand is why the Republican candidates are actually telling the truth about their hawkishness. I mean, people who voted for Lincoln probably didn't think there would be a civil war, Woodrow Wilson campaigned on a promise to keep us out of Europe, Roosevelt never campaigned on a war with Japan, Nixon won because voters thought he'd bring a swift end to the War in Vietnam, George W. Bush won by being against nation-building, and Obama won by being against the Iraq War.

It seems like the openly hawkish candidate loses, so why don't the Republicans lie?

Good point. I guess Americans have lost their desire for peace?
 
Good point. I guess Americans have lost their desire for peace?

I wouldn't say that, it's just that FOX news has ingrained into the minds of millions of right-leaning people that being pro-war is essential to being a Conservative. In the '90s many on the right supported Pat Buchanan who advocated a return to normalcy after the fall of the USSR. The Weekly Standard was extremely worried about this, there are articles from the end of Clinton's Presidency dealing with the rising "isolationist" attitude in the GOP, and praising McCain for supporting Clinton's interventions.

Lew Rockwell was smeared along with Buchanan in one of the articles against anti-war sentiments on the right. Ron Paul wasn't really targeted until 2007, when people started learning who he was.
 
Mitt Romney

I will never forget his statements about stripping the rights of people declared as "enemy combatants" hes a nutjob
 
54421815.jpg


Most of us didn't vote for him in the general in 2012. What makes anyone think we would vote for him in the primary? Even if Rand wasn't running (and he is) I wouldn't vote for Romney. My second choice would be Ben Carson. Not perfect, but better than anyone else I can think of running for the GOP nomination. My third choice? I can't think of one. All of the rest of them totally suck so bad that I would sit out the GOP primary.
 
I wouldn't say that, it's just that FOX news has ingrained into the minds of millions of right-leaning people that being pro-war is essential to being a Conservative. In the '90s many on the right supported Pat Buchanan who advocated a return to normalcy after the fall of the USSR. The Weekly Standard was extremely worried about this, there are articles from the end of Clinton's Presidency dealing with the rising "isolationist" attitude in the GOP, and praising McCain for supporting Clinton's interventions.

Lew Rockwell was smeared along with Buchanan in one of the articles against anti-war sentiments on the right. Ron Paul wasn't really targeted until 2007, when people started learning who he was.

Because those who side with peace are seen as weak on foreign policy. It's patriotic to blow up brown people donchya know?
 
54421815.jpg


Most of us didn't vote for him in the general in 2012. What makes anyone think we would vote for him in the primary? Even if Rand wasn't running (and he is) I wouldn't vote for Romney. My second choice would be Ben Carson. Not perfect, but better than anyone else I can think of running for the GOP nomination. My third choice? I can't think of one. All of the rest of them totally suck so bad that I would sit out the GOP primary.

How about Rand Paul or Libertarian party?
 
Back
Top