A Ron Paul deal with Mitt Romney: what’s in it for him?

Mitt and Dr. Paul are BFF…

washingtontimes.com | Apr 6, 2012

by Catherine Poe

WASHINGTON, April 6, 2012 — The rumors just won’t go away. They continue to swirl around Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. No matter how quickly the Paul people try to quash such talk, the rumors flare up again.

For months now, insiders have been claiming that the two candidates have not only made a pact not to go after each other at the debates or in their ads, but that Paul will throw his full support behind Romney and not run as a Third Party candidate. In return, Paul supposedly will get one of the following

1. a VP slot for his son Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

2. a position in a Romney administration

3. a prime time spot at the convention for him and/or his son  to speak

4. an adoption of at least some of his Libertarian tenets

5. a seat at the all-important table of the nominee.

Now still another account from sources close to the Ron Paul campaign has materialized, acknowledging that an alliance has been forged. Business Insider said that the confidants, who preferred to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, confirmed what we all have suspected, “The courtship [between the two candidates] has been underway for a long time.”

This even as  Ron Paul’s campaign manager was saying, “Our most cordial relationship is probably with Romney’s people, but cordiality doesn’t imply anything other than that we are civil. Just because we’re polite doesn’t mean we’re cutting deals.”

However, “sources close to the campaign told Business Insider that, behind the scenes, there have been ongoing discussions between the two campaigns that appear to include, or at least be the precursor to, an eventual deal.”

Of course, both Paul and Romney have vehemently denied the allegations. But then again, they would. Wouldn’t look so good for the pure as driven snow Dr. Paul to be making side deals with the likes of Romney, an anathema to most of his supporters. And Mitt wouldn’t look so good either if it were known he was a back room kind of guy, cutting secret deals. Despite the denials, there is an old saying that where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

It looks as though this emerging strategic partnership has been in the works for a while and despite ideological differences, the two men struck up a friendship back in 2008 when both were running in the presidential primary. A Republican strategist back in February confirmed that the two candidates are quietly in touch through their aides. In fact, the two campaigns have even coordinated on minor details “such as staggering the timing of each candidate’s appearance on television the night of the New Hampshire primaryfor maximum effect.”

Rick Santorum has been complaining about the chumminess of his two rivals for months now. After one of recent debate, Santorum suggested that Paul and Romney had ganged up on him, part of backroom “running mate deal.” When asked at a Tea Party Rally about the perceived bashing he took at the hands of his rivals, Santorum said: “The coordination that I felt at that debate was pretty clear. I felt like messages were being slipped behind my chair. It’s pretty remarkable that in 20 debates, Ron Paul never attacked Mitt Romney.”

Even the likes of Rush Limbaugh has added his two cents, speculating about the advantages of the new bromance that is brewing between the two candidates:

“I’m just beginning to see huge advantages to Romney if Ron Paul stays in. I can see Romney offering a plum to Ron Paul’s son (every father cares about such things.) I can see Romney offering a plum to Paul’s son and to not run a third party to set his son up for the future. If you’ve noticed, Ron Paul never rips Romney, which I know Romney appreciates. In fact, Ron Paul joins the chorus of those defending Romney sometimes.”

Even though as recently as last Monday, Paul said he wasn’t sure if he would endorse the ultimate Republican candidate, the rumormongering goes on unabated. Paul’s campaign advisors told Business Insider on the record that “Ron Paul’s principles will not be compromised. I’m shocked that anyone would think that.”

Still other supporters protest that what observers may think their being simpatico is actually more likely Dr. Paul’s animosity toward Santorum and Gingrich than any “friendship” with Romney. (Both men have opposed the candidacy of both Paul and his son Senator Paul in the past.)

If it turns out that there is a deal, the impact will be interesting to watch. In the long run, Romney’s supporters probably could care less. Whatever secures the nomination for their candidate is ok with them. But for the fervent, often zealous supporters of Congressman Paul, this could be a disappointment of monumental proportions. It might be equal to learning that your parents lied to you and there is no Santa Claus.

Dr. Paul has been known as a man of integrity or at least that is his campaign persona. He gives ground to no one on his Libertarian principles even when they ruffle the feathers of the Republican Party. He doesn’t play to crowd in the debates, telling them what they want to hear.

He says what he thinks they should hear. His followers are like disciples going out among the great unwashed and bringing the gospel of Libertarianism. They are probably hoping to see him on the ballot come November as a Third Party candidate, not that they truly believe he can win, but so he can continue to carry the message.

In fact, to some degree Paul’s Libertarian message has penetrated the GOP, which has moved much closer to where Dr. Paul stands than it did just ten years ago. Paul didn’t move closer to the GOP’s long held positions, it shifted his way.

For Ron Paul, all this political jockeying is merely a means to an end if he and his supporters are to gain a toehold in the Republican Party. They have organized at the grassroots level, gotten themselves on county committees, and even run to be delegates and state officers. Their goal all along has been to bring the libertarian vision into the mainstream.

However, do not expect to see a Mitt Romney and Ron Paul joint press conference after the primary, one in which the two rivals now swear allegiance to one another. After all, the Congressman, who is retiring this year, has his legacy to preserve.

So how will we know if a pact was made? Look for two things to happen:

1. Paul does not start a Third Party insurgency;
2. Romney allows Paul his moment in the sun at the GOP August convention during prime time.

“Ron Paul wants a presence at the convention,” one Paul adviser told Business Insider, and  if Romney is the GOP nominee he would grant that wish.

That in turn would bring out an important constituency, one that works hard, tirelessly, some might say relentlessly, into the Romney fold. The Paul supporters could be the tipping point in Mitt Romney’s drive to defeat President Obama.

That is why Mitt and Dr. Paul are BFF.

There Really Is A Secret Alliance Between Ron Paul And Mitt Romney

businessinsider.com | Apr 3, 2012

by Grace Wyler

For the past few weeks, reports have been circulating about a “secret alliance” between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, fueling speculation that, if the price was right, the iconoclastic Congressman might be ready to cut a deal and throw his support behind the eventual nominee.

Paul said Monday that he is “not sure” whether he will endorse the GOP’s candidate in the likely event that he loses the nomination fight. His senior advisors deny that there is any deal in the works, and bristle at the suggestion that their candidate could be bought.

“I think the narrative is amusing to no end — I would say 99.9 percent of it is media speculation,” the campaign’s official blogger Jack Hunter told Business Insider. “Ron Paul’s principles will not be compromised. I’m shocked that anyone would think that.”

“Ron Paul is incorruptible,” senior campaign advisor Doug Wead added. “In 22 years, there have been no women, no money, nothing — so I can’t believe he would make a deal now.”

Senior Paul advisors also suggested that Paul’s perceived lack of attacks on Romney could have more to do with his animosity toward Santorum and Gingrich than with any “friendship” with the frontrunner. Santorum endorsed Rand Paul’s primary opponent Trey Grayson in the 2010 Kentucky Senate race, and Gingrich once campaigned for an opponent of the elder Paul when both men were serving in the House.

“Our most cordial relationship is probably with Romney’s people, but cordiality doesn’t imply anything other than that we are civil,” Paul’s campaign manager Jesse Benton told BI. “Just because we’re polite doesn’t mean we’re cutting deals.”

But sources close to the campaign told Business Insider that, behind the scenes, there have been ongoing discussions between the two campaigns that appear to include, or at least be the precursor to, an eventual deal.

“The courtship has been underway for a long time,” a source who declined to be named, talking about internal campaign affairs told Business Insider. “They are smart enough to know that he [Paul] can’t win the nomination or get a Cabinet position … but Ron Paul has to go somewhere.”

At stake, is Paul’s legacy and the future of his movement. After two decades in the House and three presidential campaigns, the libertarian septuagenarian is nearing the end of his political career. And while his performance in the 2012 primaries far exceeded even the campaign’s expectations, there is a growing acceptance among some campaign advisors they must come to some kind of agreement with Romney and the party’s Establishment or risk forfeiting the gains made since 2008.

“You don’t have to be a math genius to know that it is going to be very hard for us to get to Tampa with 1,144 delegates,” Benton said. But, he added, ““short of Dr. Paul being the nominee, there would be a substantial price for us to throw our support behind someone else.”

The problem with any potential deal, of course, is that Paul’s support is predicated on the candidate’s unwillingness to compromise his principles, many of which are at odds with mainstream Republican positions. Any evidence that Paul had abdicated those ideals for political expediency would destroy both his movement and the Paul brand.

“Our supporters wouldn’t let us sell out, so even if we wanted to sell out it would be fruitless,” Benton said. “If it turns out we can’t make Ron the nominee, we would have to communicate with our people to see what would be acceptable to them.”

Media reports have speculated that a possible deal might include a prime speaking slot at the Republican National Convention or influence over the party’s platform discussions — neither of which is likely to be enough for Paul’s supporters.

“To think that is to think Dr. Paul is cheap,” Benton said. “He wants to save America — a speaking slot at a convention isn’t that important.”

The other option that has been floated is a possible Cabinet position for Paul’s son Rand. But Rand Paul does not engender the same devotion among the Movement, and Paul diehards are more likely to see his acceptance of a role in Romney’s administration as a betrayal than as a victory.

“There’s no way, because he would be working under a neo-con,” Dale Decker, a prominent grassroots organizer for Paul in Wisconsin, told BI. “Ron Paul Nation will not vote for a Mitt Romney-Rand Paul ticket – it’s Ron Paul or None At All.”

Kristan Harris, another Paul devotee from Wisconsin who is applying to be an RNC delegate, was more circumspect:

“It would never happen because you’d kill the movement,” Harris said. “The only scenario where I can imagine Ron Paul accepting Rand as vice president, is if they made him head of the Treasury.”

In the end, any deal between Romney and Paul will likely be implicit and reflect Paul’s broader goal to shape the Republican Party from the inside.

Paul is now poised to take advantage of the fractured Republican party, and leverage his 2012 success into a broader acceptance of his movement by the party. Sources familiar with the Paul campaign have even suggested that a quiet promise to support (and fund) Paul’s Campaign For Liberty PAC would go a long way in discussions about a deal.

The agreement would actually be a natural progression of Paul’s relationship with the Republican Establishment. Since his 2008 presidential campaign, the Paul camp made a conscious decision to diminish the perception that the candidate was about fringe issues, shifting control of the movement out of the hands of local organizers and volunteers and professionalizing the campaign with the addition of veteran GOP operatives whose first loyalty is to the party, rather than to Paul.

But as Paul’s team contemplates its next move in the glare of the national spotlight, it must strike a delicate balance between its new ideological elasticity and loyalty to the grassroots activists who have propelled the Ron Paul Revolution.

Big Romney is watching you

Security cameras on a pole in front of the giant portrait of former Chinese Chairman Mao Zedong at Beijing’s Tiananmen Square Jan. 9, 2012.  (Credit: David Gray / Reuters)

salon.com | Mar 16, 2012  

Romney’s private equity firm is helping China create an all-seeing surveillance system — the free market at work

The New York Times reported today that Bain Capital, the private equity firm started by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, owns a Chinese company, Uniview, that supplies highly advanced surveillance equipment to the Chinese government. China’s authoritarian rulers are using the equipment to create an “omniscient monitoring system” throughout the country, according to a Human Rights Watch researcher quoted by the Times. “When it comes to surveillance, China is pretty upfront about its totalitarian ambitions,” said Nicholas Bequelin.

To realize those totalitarian ambitions, China’s authorities, with Bain Capital’s help, are expanding the country’s already vast network of surveillance cameras. The city of Chongqing is spending $4.2 billion for a network of 500,000 cameras, Guangdong Province is installing a million cameras, and Beijing is planning to put cameras in all entertainment venues, the Times reported.

The authorities use these cameras, along with Internet monitoring and cellphone surveillance, to monitor as much of the entire population as possible. But they are particularly interested in keeping a permanent eye on democracy advocates, intellectuals, religious figures and other people they deem dangerous. For example, police used a surveillance camera to record a human rights lawyer named Li Tiantian entering a hotel with men other than her boyfriend, then taunted her about her sex life and threatened to show the tape to her boyfriend. “The scale of intrusion into people’s private lives is unprecedented,” Li told the Times. “Now when I walk on the street, I feel so vulnerable, like the police are watching me all the time.”

But the whining of Li and her troublemaking ilk are of no concern to the patriotic Uniview. In its promotional materials, the company chirps, “Social management and society building pose new demands for surveillance and control systems.”

Related

Big Brother Bain Is Watching You

Bain is also untroubled by the fact that it owns a company dedicated to re-creating the unique societal ambience of George Orwell’s “1984.” It stressed to the Times that Uniview’s products “were advertised” as tools to fight crime, not to monitor dissidents, and that only one-third of Uniview’s sales were to public security bureaus.

Ah, because Uniview advertised that its surveillance cameras were only used to fight crime, it’s OK for Bain to own them. Thanks for clearing that up, Bain! (I take the liberty of addressing you as Bain because, as the Supreme Court has ruled and the GOP believes, corporations are people.)

Speaking of which, Bain, I would be remiss to your investors if I did not draw your attention to an excellent opportunity to acquire a leading Rwandan firm, the Tutsi Machete Co. The Tutsi Machete Co. is a perfect target for you. It is underperforming, has a weak management structure and is ripe for a leveraged buyout. Some have claimed that TMC provides hundreds of thousands of machetes to frenzied genocidal mobs, but that is not a concern: The company ran an ad claiming that their machetes were only used to fight crime. Making the optics even stronger, only one-third of the machetes were given to frenzied genocidal mobs. With a significant downsizing of its workforce – which can be accomplished using the company’s own products, thus ensuring significant additional savings – TMC’s profits should increase by 300 percent. Recommendation: Buy.

Romney and his wife earned at least $5.6 million from their Bain holdings, the Times reported. But according to the person who manages their trusts, the Romneys had nothing to do with the decision to invest in Uniview. All they did was pocket the money.

Owning a piece of the Great Eye of Sauron Company is probably too much even for the free-market-worshiping Romney. He will probably get out of the trust, and it won’t be surprising if Bain suddenly decides to unload Uniview. But that won’t solve the real problem, which this grotesque episode highlights. The real problem is untrammeled capitalism, at whose coldblooded shrine he and the rest of the GOP worship. And that problem won’t go away if Romney washes his hands of Uniview, any more than Pontius Pilate was able to wash away his responsibility for crucifying Jesus.

For the almighty market has no conscience. Private equity firms like Bain are sharks. They were created to maximize profits for their investors – nothing more, nothing less. Buying Uniview was egregious, but firms like Bain buy slightly less nasty versions of Uniview every day. Until they stop making decisions solely based on the bottom line, the same issues will keep coming up.

The same thing applies to the free-market mantra constantly repeated by companies like Bain and their defenders — “improving corporate performance.” “Improving corporate performance” really means “maximizing profits for shareholders.” Sure, it sometimes works out well for everyone, workers and investors alike. But the point is, that isn’t its goal. The fate of human beings is not important. If tens of thousands of workers get dumped along the way, they’re just collateral damage, road kill along the great haj to honor Adam Smith.

Early in the primary campaign, in a desperate attempt to wound Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich both channeled their inner Marx and made this exact charge against Romney and Bain. When Romney fired back that they were “putting free enterprise on trial,” and GOP ideologues tut-tutted, Twinkle Dumb and Twinkle Me realized that they had gone too far off the reservation and changed the subject. But they were right.

As a liberal, I’d like to be able to cite this story as an example of the perfidy of the American right and the internal contradictions of an ideology that exalts “freedom” but somehow leads to totalitarianism. Unfortunately, the Democrats are virtually indistinguishable from the Republicans on this issue. Bain Capital, in all its creepiness, is as American as apple pie.

Bain is doing two things with Uniview. It is helping an authoritarian regime keep an eternal eye on its citizens, and it is doing so for the same reason it does everything: to maximize its profits. The Democrats are marginally better than the Republicans when it comes to the latter issue: they at least pay lip service to the workers who are “downsized” by firms like Bain. But the differences are cosmetic: they, too, have essentially bought the gospel of greed. And both parties have signed off on the Surveillance Society.

It was President George W. Bush who created the Patriot Act. But in 2011, it was President Obama who asked Congress to extend its surveillance powers. It was Obama who signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows indefinite detention and essentially declares that the “war on terror” is permanent. And it was Obama who decided that it was OK to launch drones at will around the world, and assassinate American citizens without trial.

After all, those who are innocent have nothing to fear.

So there’s no reason to worry about the millions of surveillance cameras being deployed all over China. Big Brother is already watching us. Why shouldn’t he watch some other people too?

Romney, Paul camps form alliance in Missouri

Associated Press | Mar 19, 2012

BY David A. Lieb

JEFFERSON CITY — If presidential candidate Rick Santorum fails to win a majority of Missouri’s delegates to the Republican National Convention, it may be because of an alliance forged by supporters of Mitt Romney and Ron Paul at several pivotal local caucuses this past weekend.

Santorum won Missouri’s nonbinding presidential primary in February, sweeping all 114 counties and the city of St. Louis after he was the only Republican candidate to campaign before the election. But Santorum did not score a clean sweep Saturday, when Republicans caucused at nearly 140 sites in a first step toward allotting Missouri’s delegates to particular presidential candidates.

Although Santorum’s supporters turned out in significant numbers, they got outmaneuvered in some caucuses when Paul proponents paired up with Romney followers to form a majority coalition. The alliance brought together some of the Republican Party’s traditional insiders — supporting Romney — and its fringe activists — supporting Paul — to potentially deny delegates to Santorum, the candidate most capable of mounting a challenge to the front-running Romney.

Nationally, Romney leads the Republican race with 521 delegates, compared with Santorum’s 253, Newt Gingrich’s 136 and Paul’s 50, according a count by The Associated Press.

Related

• Here’s How That Romney-Paul Alliance Works
• Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital tied to China’s totalitarian Big Brother surveillance camera push

Missouri’s 52 delegates are not yet included in that tally. That’s because the local caucuses that occurred this past weekend — as well others scheduled for Saturday in Jackson County and St. Louis — did not bind delegates to particular presidential candidates. Rather, the county and township caucuses are choosing 2,123 people to advance to regional Republican conventions April 21 and a state party convention June 2, where delegates will be given to presidential candidates.

Confusion and contention were common at Missouri’s local caucuses, but the Paul and Romney camps used that to their advantage in some cases.

Paul supporters dominated Saturday’s caucus in Boone County, where he had campaigned two days earlier. They paired with a smaller Romney contingent to elect a slate of 48 Paul delegates and five Romney delegates to advance to the next round in the selection process. Santorum was shut out.

Santorum supporters were also outflanked in the Republican stronghold of Greene County. A Paul-Romney alliance resulted in a slate allotting 65 delegates to Paul, 40 to Romney and six to Santorum.

A similar alliance turned back Santorum supporters in the Capitol’s home of Cole County, where Romney backers comprised the bulk of the 35 delegates with some also going to Paul supporters.

In Franklin County, Santorum carried the plurality on an initial vote of separate delegate slates put forward by the three camps. But during a break, Paul and Romney supporters combined forces, resulting in victory for a revised 40-person delegate slate in which Paul supporters comprised a little less than two-thirds of the delegates and Romney supporters comprised more than one-third. Santorum supporters were left with nothing.

“The Ron Paul people and the Romney people were willing to work together because they wanted to get some delegates to the next level, and that was the way to do it,” said Jedidiah Smith, a Paul delegate from Franklin County. “It’s not so much that they see eye-to-eye together.”

A Romney-Paul coalition nearly prevailed in the St. Louis County township of Chesterfield, where Santorum campaigned just hours before Saturday’s caucus. Former U.S. Sen. Jim Talent, a Romney campaign adviser, attempted to broker a compromise that would have provided some delegates for all the presidential campaigns. But Santorum’s group rejected it.

“It’s perfectly legal to team up,” said Judy Hon, a Chesterfield township committeewoman who led the Santorum contingent. “I asked if the Ron Paul people could be removed and they did not want to make that compromise. So I said, ‘We’ll go for broke.’”

In the resulting vote, the slate of Santorum delegates narrowly prevailed over a slate that consisted of 16 Romney delegates, three Paul delegates and one delegate for Newt Gingrich.

The reason for the Romney-Paul alliance is more political and philosophical.

As the frontrunner, Romney comes out ahead every time Santorum does not win a delegate.

In that sense, “a vote for Paul is a vote for Romney,” said George Connor, head of the political science department at Missouri State University.

As the candidate trailing the delegate race, Paul’s best shot at relevance is to gain enough delegates to command a role at the Republican National Convention.

“What they’re guaranteeing is access to the convention” by teaming up with Romney, Connor said.

Santorum still has a shot at winning the majority of Missouri’s delegates from its eight congressional district conventions and state convention. But if the Romney-Paul alliance remains firm, the result could be a split of Missouri’s 52 delegates among various presidential candidates.

That would be fine with Romney’s camp.

“I hope what happens is we get some kind of a split that reflects, I think, the real feeling within the party — because it’s clear to me that it’s split,” Talent said.

Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital tied to China’s totalitarian Big Brother surveillance camera push

“The scale of intrusion into people’s private lives is unprecedented. Now when I walk on the street, I feel so vulnerable, like the police are watching me all the time.”

MSNBC | Mar 16, 2012

By ANDREW JACOBS and PENN BULLOCK

BEIJING — As the Chinese government forges ahead on a multibillion-dollar effort to blanket the country with surveillance cameras, one American company stands to profit: Bain Capital, the private equity firm founded by Mitt Romney.

In December, a Bain-run fund in which a Romney family blind trust has holdings purchased the video surveillance division of a Chinese company that claims to be the largest supplier to the government’s Safe Cities program, a highly advanced monitoring system that allows the authorities to watch over university campuses, hospitals, mosques and movie theaters from centralized command posts.

The Bain-owned company, Uniview Technologies, produces what it calls “infrared antiriot” cameras and software that enable police officials in different jurisdictions to share images in real time through the Internet. Previous projects have included an emergency command center in Tibet that “provides a solid foundation for the maintenance of social stability and the protection of people’s peaceful life,” according to Uniview’s Web site.

Such surveillance systems are often used to combat crime and the manufacturer has no control over whether they are used for other purposes. But human rights advocates say in China they are also used to intimidate and monitor political and religious dissidents. “There are video cameras all over our monastery, and their only purpose is to make us feel fear,” said Loksag, a Tibetan Buddhist monk in Gansu Province. He said the cameras helped the authorities identify and detain nearly 200 monks who participated in a protest at his monastery in 2008.

Mr. Romney has had no role in Bain’s operations since 1999 and had no say over the investment in China. But the fortunes of Bain and Mr. Romney are still closely tied.

The financial disclosure forms Mr. Romney filed last August show that a blind trust in the name of his wife, Ann Romney, held a relatively small stake of between $100,000 and $250,000 in the Bain Capital Asia fund that purchased Uniview.

In a statement, R. Bradford Malt, who manages the Romneys’ trusts, noted that he had put trust assets into the fund before it bought Uniview. He said that the Romneys had no role in guiding their investments. He also said he had no control over the Asian fund’s choice of investments.

Mr. Romney reported on his August disclosure forms that he and his wife earned a minimum of $5.6 million from Bain assets held in their blind trusts and retirement accounts. Bain employees and executives are also among the largest donors to his campaign, and their contributions accounted for 10 percent of the money received over the past year by Restore Our Future, the pro-Romney “super PAC.” Bain employees have also made substantial contributions to Democratic candidates, including President Obama.

Bain’s decision to enter China’s fast-growing surveillance industry raises questions about the direct role that American corporations play in outfitting authoritarian governments with technology that can be used to repress their own citizens.

It also comes at a delicate time for Mr. Romney, who has frequently called for a hard line against the Chinese government’s suppression of religious freedom and political dissent.

As with previous deals involving other American companies, critics argue that Bain’s acquisition of Uniview violates the spirit — if not necessarily the letter — of American sanctions imposed on Beijing after the deadly crackdown on protests in Tiananmen Square. Those rules, written two decades ago, bar American corporations from exporting to China “crime-control” products like those that process fingerprints, make photo identification cards or use night vision technology.

Most video surveillance equipment is not covered by the sanctions, even though a Canadian human rights group found in 2001 that Chinese security forces used Western-made video cameras to help identify and apprehend Tiananmen Square protesters.

Representative Frank R. Wolf, Republican of Virginia, who frequently assails companies that do business with Chinese security agencies, said calls by some members of Congress to pass stricter regulations on American businesses have gone nowhere. “These companies are busy making a profit and don’t want to face realities, but what they’re doing is wrong,” said Mr. Wolf, who is co-chairman of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.

In public comments and in a statement posted on his campaign Web site, Mr. Romney has accused the Obama administration of placing economic concerns above human rights in managing relations with China. He has called on the White House to offer more vigorous support of those who criticize the Chinese Communist Party.

“Any serious U.S. policy toward China must confront the fact that China’s regime continues to deny its people basic political freedoms and human rights,” according to the statement on his Web site. “The United States has an important role to play in encouraging the evolution of China toward a more politically open and democratic order.”

In recent years, a number of Western companies, including Honeywell, General Electric, I.B.M. and United Technologies, have been criticized for selling sophisticated surveillance-related technology to the Chinese government.

Other companies have been accused of directly helping China quash perceived opponents. In 2007, Yahoo settled a lawsuit asserting that it had provided the authorities with e-mails of a journalist who was later sentenced to 10 years in prison for sending an e-mail that prosecutors charged contained state secrets.

Cisco Systems is fighting a lawsuit in the United States filed by a human rights group over Internet networking equipment it sold to the Chinese government. The lawsuit asserts that the system, tailored to government demands, allowed the authorities to track down and torture members of the religious group Falun Gong.

‘Personal safety’

Bain defended its purchase of Uniview, stressing that the Chinese company’s products were advertised as instruments for crime control, not political repression. “China’s increasingly urban population will face growing needs around personal safety and property protection,” the company said in a statement. “Video surveillance is part of the solution to that, as it is anywhere in the world.” The company also said that only one-third of Uniview’s sales were to public security bureaus.

William A. Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council in Washington, said it was up to the American government, not individual companies, to set the guidelines for such business ventures. “A lot of the stuff we’re talking about is truly dual use,” said Mr. Reinsch, a former Commerce Department official in the Clinton administration. “You can sell it to a local police force that will use it to track down speeders, but you can also sell it to a ministry of state security that will use it to monitor dissidents.”

But Adam Segal, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and an expert on the intersection of technology and domestic security in China, said American companies could not shirk responsibility for the way their technology is used, especially in the wake of recent controversies over the sales of Western Internet filtering systems to autocratic rulers in the Arab world. “Technology companies have to begin to think about the ethics and political implications of selling these technologies,” he said.

Uniview is proud of its close association with China’s security establishment and boasts about the scores of surveillance systems it has created for local security agencies in the six years since the Safe Cities program was started.

“Social management and society building pose new demands for surveillance and control systems,” Uniview says in its promotional materials, which include an interview with Zhang Pengguo, the company’s chief executive. “A harmonious society is the essential nature of socialism with Chinese characteristics,” Mr. Zhang says.

Until now, Bain’s takeover of Uniview has drawn little attention outside China. The company was formerly the surveillance division of H3C, a joint venture between 3Com and Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications giant whose expansion plans in the United States have faced resistance from Congress over questions about its ties to the Chinese military.

In 2010, 3Com, along with H3C, became a subsidiary of Hewlett-Packard in a $2.7 billion buyout deal.

H3C also sells technology unrelated to video surveillance, including Internet firewall products, but it was the video surveillance division alone that drew Bain Capital’s interest.

In December, H3C announced that Bain had bought out the surveillance division and formed Uniview, although under terms of the buyout, H3C provides Uniview with products, technical support and, for a period of time, the use of its brand name. Bain controls Uniview but says it has no role in its day-to-day operations.

Bain is, however, well positioned to profit. According to the British firm IMS Research, the Chinese market for security camera networks was $2.5 billion last year, a figure that is expected to double by 2015, with more than two-thirds of that demand coming from the government. Uniview currently has just 1 percent of the market, the firm said.

‘Watching me all the time’

Chinese cities are rushing to construct their own surveillance systems. Chongqing, in Sichuan Province, is spending $4.2 billion on a network of 500,000 cameras, according to the state news media. Guangdong Province, the manufacturing powerhouse adjacent to Hong Kong, is mounting one million cameras. In Beijing, the municipal government is seeking to place cameras in all entertainment venues, adding to the skein of 300,000 cameras that were installed here for the 2008 Olympics.

By marrying Internet, cellphone and video surveillance, the government is seeking to create an omniscient monitoring system, said Nicholas Bequelin, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch in Hong Kong. “When it comes to surveillance, China is pretty upfront about its totalitarian ambitions,” he said.

For the legion of Chinese intellectuals, democracy advocates and religious figures who have tangled with the government, surveillance cameras have become inescapable.

Yang Weidong, a politically active filmmaker, said a phalanx of 13 cameras were installed in and around his apartment building last year after he submitted an interview request to President Hu Jintao, drawing the ire of domestic security agents. In January, Ai Weiwei, the artist and public critic, was questioned by the police after he threw stones at cameras trained on his front gate.

Li Tiantian, 45, a human rights lawyer in Shanghai, said the police used footage recorded outside a hotel in an effort to manipulate her during the three months she was illegally detained last year. The video, she said, showed her entering the hotel in the company of men other than her boyfriend.

During interrogations, Ms. Li said, the police taunted her about her sex life and threatened to show the video to her boyfriend. The boyfriend, however, refused to watch, she said.

“The scale of intrusion into people’s private lives is unprecedented,” she said in a phone interview. “Now when I walk on the street, I feel so vulnerable, like the police are watching me all the time.”

Ron Paul Owned and Operated by National Security State “Spook Central” Billionaire

When you think Ron Paul, think Spook Central. Paul is owned by a Spook Central billionaire.

Palantir has built a customer list that includes the U.S. Defense Dept., CIA, FBI, Army, Marines, Air Force, the police departments of New York and Los Angeles, and a growing number of financial institutions trying to detect bank fraud. These deals have turned the company into one of the quietest success stories in Silicon Valley—it’s on track to hit $250 million in sales this year—and a candidate for an initial public offering. Palantir has been used to find suspects in a case involving the murder of a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agent, and to uncover bombing networks in Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. “It’s like plugging into the Matrix,” says a Special Forces member.

Palantir is a major player at Spook Central, the public-private conglo that runs the U.S. national security state.

Ron Paul’s billionaire—Peter Thiel, founder of nat’l security giant Palantir, also PayPal

americablog.com | Mar 14, 2012

By Gaius Publius

It seems that every national candidate has a billionaire daddy (or is had by one). Like sports team ownership, national political ownership is a big-money game these days.

First we learned about Newt Gingrich’s billionaire — casino giant Sheldon Adelson. Then we discovered Santorum was similarly possessed — by Foster Freiss, a fan of Gov. Scott Walker and aspirin.

Related

Bilderberg steering committee member is Ron Paul’s biggest campaign donor

Now comes news of Ron Paul’s billionaire. What this says about Dr. Paul is well worth knowing.

Bottom line — Ron Paul’s billionaire is a major player from the depths of the public-private national security industry, a very heavy hitter from the Spook-Industrial State.

Read More

Explaining the Odd Romney-Paul Bromance

Photograph by Eric Thayer/New York Times/Redux

businessweek.com | Mar 1, 2012

by Joshua Green

It’s rare to see a bromance flourish in the hot glare of the GOP primary spotlight, but Mitt Romney and Ron Paul have something positively special going on. It isn’t based on shared policy views: Mitt wants to grow the armed forces; Ron wants to bring them home. Mitt’s OK with (state) government health care; Ron doesn’t want government doing much of anything. Of all the candidates, Romney is furthest to the Left—and yet appears to enjoy the tacit support of a conservative so strict he once voted to deny Mother Teresa a Congressional Gold Medal because the Constitution doesn’t explicitly authorize the expense.

Hard as it may be to believe, it’s even harder to deny. A study this week by the liberal group ThinkProgress found Paul has not attacked Romney in any of the 20 Republican debates, although he hasn’t hesitated to go after the other candidates. In Michigan, where Paul wasn’t competitive, he nevertheless ran ads pounding Romney’s chief rival, Rick Santorum. The political world is dying to know: What’s going on?

The line being peddled by the campaigns is that a mutual affection developed during the 2008 race, when both men were running for president. Their wives are said to like each other, too. And given the alternatives are Santorum and Newt Gingrich, well, enough said. But politics is politics, and raw self-interest lies at the heart of every decision. Trying to discern what each gains from the alliance has become a Washington parlor game.

Related

• Ron Paul, Romney in quiet alliance?
  
• Romney and Paul, what a curious couple

For Romney, the answer isn’t hard to fathom. Despite his advantages in money and organization, he’s a surprisingly weak front-runner, vulnerable to a conservative challenger. Paul’s views are far enough outside the mainstream that he won’t provide that challenge. But he commands an army of loyalists and has enough money himself to damage any of his opponents. An armistice lets Romney preserve resources, popularity, and viability because it leaves one fewer opponent to attack, and to attack him.

What Paul gets out of the arrangement is much harder to discern. One popular theory is that he wants his son, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), to become Romney’s vice president. But that’s nuts—Rand Paul’s first turn on the national stage came when he criticized the Civil Rights Act. Romney is too shrewd and risk-averse to court that kind of trouble. Besides, selecting Paul, who has served all of 18 months, would undermine the force of his critique of President Obama, whom he is trying to cast as a nice guy in over his head.

Another suspicion among Republicans on Capitol Hill is that Ron Paul is angling to become chairman of the Federal Reserve. But the idea that President Romney would stake the economy (to say nothing of his own political career) on a guy who has written a bestseller called End the Fed is even crazier than the speculation about Paul’s son. A more plausible theory is that Paul has extracted some sort of concession by which Romney would agree to support an audit of the Fed and grant Paul a choice speaking slot at the Republican National Convention.

But if that’s what Paul has settled for, he’s a cheap date. The financial reform legislation Obama signed in 2010 already produced an audit of the Fed’s emergency lending programs. And Paul could hardly be denied a speech, anyway.

My own theory is that Paul may have convinced Romney to establish another Gold Commission like the one Ronald Reagan set up in 1982 to examine whether the U.S. should return to a gold standard—an idea Paul has espoused for decades. Two years ago he told me that Reagan had been won over by the cause. “A country doesn’t remain great if it gets off the gold standard,” Paul said Reagan told him. But the White House blocked him. A presidential commission devoted to Paul’s animating issue might be a fair trade.

Whatever the deal, if there is one, Romney had better be sure he lives up to his end. Paul is helping Romney secure the nomination, but he could just as easily deny him the presidency should he feel betrayed. Paul has already announced his retirement from Congress—and has run as a third-party candidate once before.

Does the Romney-Ron Paul Pact Make Paul a Sellout?

The proudly incorruptible libertarian’s all-but-open collusion with Mitt Romney, the establishment candidate, should infuriate his fans. And yet somehow it doesn’t.

theatlantic.com | Mar 1, 2012

By Molly Ball

Ron Paul is helping Mitt Romney. It’s been obvious for months. You’d think Paul’s followers would be outraged by this — but they’re not.

The Paul-Romney alliance means the race’s most ideologically pure fiscal conservative has effectively sold out to the least conservative, least consistent, most establishmentarian candidate in the field. Romney favors the basic concept of progressive taxation and a government’s right to compel citizens to purchase health insurance. It’s unthinkable that he would, if elected, end the Federal Reserve. Alone among the candidates, he insists that there be no cuts to any military spending. All these stances are anathema to Paul’s staunchly absolutist world view.

On paper, you would think Romney would be the chief subject of attacks from the Paul campaign, which has, in its television ads, been more unapologetically negative than any other. Paul has run one ad that slams all three of his rivals — Newt Gingrich (“serial hypocrite”), Rick Santorum (“counterfeit conservative”) and Romney (“flip-flopper). But that’s nothing compared to the attacks he’s unleashed pointed solely at Santorum (“fake,” “a record of betrayal”) and Gingrich (“selling access”).

Romney is the major only candidate Paul hasn’t singled out in an ad. And Paul’s ads against his competitors have been far more brutal than anything Romney or his super PAC have put on the airwaves. In crucial stages of the GOP primary thus far, he’s put hundreds of thousands of dollars behind these ads, helping squelch Santorum and Gingrich when they posed the most danger to Romney’s candidacy.

Helping Romney in his quest to make potential alternative candidates unpalatable to the conservative base is a major assist. But it’s far from the only way Paul has boosted the man who ought to be his biggest nemesis — the embodiment of the sort of soft, big-government Republicanism Paul says it’s his mission to eliminate.

Related

• Ron Paul, Romney in quiet alliance?
  
• Romney and Paul, what a curious couple

First there are the sins of omission — the opportunities to criticize Romney that Paul has passed up. The liberal group ThinkProgress studied the record and found that Paul attacked other candidates 39 times in the 20 debates to date, but didn’t go after Romney a single time. Even when moderators have tried to draw him into a potentially illuminating contrast with Romney, Paul has demurred. (David Gregory to Paul, Jan. 8: “Do you believe Governor Romney now when he says he is a man of constancy and that he’ll stand up for conservative principles?” Paul: “You know, I think this whole discussion so far has been very superficial, and I think the question in the way that you ask it is superficial.”) In some cases, Paul has even defended Romney, as in this totally unprompted swipe at Rick Perry on Sept. 7: “You know, the governor of Texas criticized the governor of Massachusetts for Romneycare, but he wrote a really fancy letter supporting Hillarycare.” His attacks on all the other candidates have been gleefully vicious. But he’s handled Romney with kid gloves.

That’s not the only example of Paul coming proactively to Romney’s aid. When Romney was under fire for his out-of-context “I like being able to fire people” sound bite in January, a “Ron Paul Campaign Statement on Republicans Attacking Capitalism” landed in reporters’ inboxes. “Two important issues that should unite Republicans are a belief in free markets and an understanding that the media often use ‘gotcha’ tactics to discredit us,” Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton wrote in the statement. “Rather than run against Governor Romney on the issues of the day Santorum, Huntsman, and Gingrich have chosen to play along with the media elites and exploit a quote taken horribly out of context. They are also using the language of the liberal left to attack private equity and condemn capitalism in a desperate and, frankly, unsavory attempt to tear down another Republican with tactics akin to those of MoveOn.org.” Romney couldn’t have said it better himself.

Paul’s campaign has acknowledged a policy of not going after Romney and sought to frame it as a matter of strategy. “We’re not fishing from the same pond,” Benton told reporters in the post-debate spin room in New Hampshire, meaning there’s no overlap between potential Paul voters — young, rebellious, idealistic — and potential Romney voters — older, status-quo-oriented party regulars. But that’s a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. As the two candidates most singly focused on fiscal issues and the economy, Romney and Paul could be competing for the same universe of voters not interested primarily in social issues. On the campaign trail, I have met more than one voter who claimed to be deciding between the two, like the Nevada man I encountered at a Paul rally who told me while he agreed with Paul’s ideas, he planned to vote for Romney because he thought Romney could win. The upcoming Virginia primary, in which only Paul and Romney managed to get on the ballot, could test the Paul camp’s theory that he wins the anti-Romney vote once Santorum and Gingrich are eliminated as choices.

In addition to Paul’s policy of nonaggression against Romney, there are the instances of operational collusion between the two camps. Throughout the primaries, they have coordinated such details as the timing of their election-night speeches, the Washington Post reported — a routine courtesy, perhaps, but one not always extended to Romney by the other campaigns.

Other instances have been more consequential. When Romney decided he didn’t want to participate in a pre-Super Tuesday debate scheduled for March 1, his camp reached agreement with Paul’s behind the scenes that both candidates would decline the invitation, as Benton has acknowledged. The debate was quickly canceled for lack of participation.

Had Paul not backed Romney up on this, the debate might well have still been held, either showcasing Romney’s avoidance or pressuring him into recommitting. And while Romney had an obvious interest in killing the debate, to deny his unpredictable rivals national screen time and an opportunity to score points on him, Paul did not. Paul’s ostensible mission, short of winning the nomination, is to spread the gospel of liberty and convert Americans to his philosophy. The opportunity to reach a national audience through televised debates is practically the reason he’s running. In 2008, he had to fight to get into the primary debates. That he would pass up an invitation this year flies in the face of his candidacy’s whole rationale.

Another less acknowledged, but possibly more significant, boost to Romney was Paul’s decision not to participate in this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. Paul had won the conference’s straw poll for three years straight, causing frustration among the organizers, who saw his mass ticket buys and buses of college students as distorting the would-be barometer of activist sentiment. But this year, Paul was the only presidential candidate not to attend and speak at the conference, and he made no attempt to organize for the straw poll. Who won in Paul’s absence? Mitt Romney, in a crucially timed lift to his candidacy that helped dampen Santorum’s momentum.

Both the candidates have denied that there’s any kind of deal. “There’s no truth” to the idea, Paul told CNN Tuesday. “No, of course not. No one is going to tell Ron Paul what to say,” Romney said in a Fox Business interview the same day. But the evidence is clear that a de facto alliance exists — and that it chiefly benefits Romney.

The biggest potential benefit to Romney, of course, lies ahead. In 2008, after he dropped out of the race, Paul never endorsed the GOP nominee, John McCain, who had open disdain for him and his followers. Romney clearly hopes to do a better job of courting Paul and his legions of supporters for the general election this time around.

A source familiar with the Paul camp’s thinking portrayed the “cahoots” idea as a conspiracy theory seized upon by a desperate Santorum as his candidacy struggles. The source acknowledged that the Paul camp had made a “strategic decision” not to target Romney-leaning voters, a calculation he said was supported by the campaign’s internal polling.

“We have been very forthright about the fact that Ron and Mitt Romney like each other as people,” as do their wives, the source said, whereas Santorum has called Paul “disgusting” and Gingrich has called him “stunningly dangerous.”

“Ron has major policy disagreements with Mitt Romney, which he has pointed out a bunch of times and run millions of dollars of ads referring to Romney as a flip-flopper,” the source added. “What we haven’t done, which we have done with the other candidates, is run direct ads hammering Mitt Romney where he’s singled out. And that’s in large part because we don’t really compete with Romney for votes.”

Given all that Romney has gotten out of their collaboration, speculation has focused on what Paul’s getting out of his work on Romney’s behalf. Some theorize that Paul has been promised a speaking slot or some other accommodation at the GOP convention. Others focus on the political future of his son, Sen. Rand Paul: running mate? Cabinet secretary? Presidential candidate in 2016? Still others have spun nefarious plots involving relationships between Paul advisers and the Romney camp.

But Paul has a simple explanation for his behavior, and it should appall his ideological followers just as much as a craven political quid pro quo would: The two men are friends. Unlike the rest of the candidates, by Paul’s account, Romney hasn’t treated Paul like a radioactive nutball; he’s greeted him with respect, as equals, and their families have become close. “I talk to Romney more than the rest on a friendly basis,” Paul told the New York Times. “He’s made a bigger attempt to do it. The others are sort of just real flat.”

What Paul, who has spent his decades in the House as a political outcast, is essentially saying is this: After all his humiliating years in the political wilderness, someone important has finally been nice to him. Alone among the establishmentarians, Romney has allowed Paul into the sacred clubhouse of legitimacy. For that, Paul is apparently willing to swallow their disagreements and play lapdog. He’s been co-opted — revealed to be less than the loyal libertarian soldier his fans take him for.

Naturally, instead of being outraged by this turn of events, Paul’s devoted following is deep in denial. “Ron Paul and his campaign people are geniuses,” one fan wrote on a RonPaulForums.com message board recently. “For months — nay, years — we’ve been hearing, ‘Who is the Alternative to Romney?’ THAT is why Ron Paul is not attacking Romney. He’s using the media’s priming against the media.” (No, this doesn’t make sense.) Another poster volunteered that “such an ‘alliance’ even if it didn’t violate so many of Pauls principals (which it does) still wouldn’t be needed.”

The Paul army’s calculation is simple: Ron Paul is perfect; therefore, anything Ron Paul does must be correct and unimpeachable. But the evidence is staring them in the face. Their man has sold out.

Ron Paul: Santorum an ‘addict of conspiracies’

Adding to the speculative frenzy, Rand Paul said last week that “it would be an honor to be considered” by Romney as a running mate.

dailycaller.com | Feb 29, 2012

By Steven Nelson

Over the past week or so, Texas Rep. Ron Paul has been widely accused of being in cahoots with fellow Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. But Paul and his campaign say that charge simply isn’t true.

After primary polls closed in Arizona and Michigan on Tuesday, Paul suggested on CNN that Rick Santorum was an “addict of conspiracies” for alleging an alliance. “Some people are much more into conspiracies than others,” Paul said.

“There is no such ‘alliance’,” campaign spokesman Gary Howard told The Daily Caller. “Dr. Paul has on numerous occasions pointed out Gov. Romney’s bad record as he has for each of the candidates.”

The supposed alliance has incited a media frenzy. Many commentators have inferred that such an alliance would be designed to assist the political future of Paul’s son, Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul.

Related

• Ron Paul: Santorum an ‘addict of conspiracies’
• Really? Ron Paul Accuses Santorum of ‘Conspiracy Theories’
• Rand Paul:’It would be an honor’ to serve as Mitt Romney’s vice president

“You have to ask Congressman Paul and Gov. Romney what they’ve got going together,” Santorum said after a Feb. 22 debate in Arizona. “Their commercials look a lot alike, and so do their attacks.”

Adding to the speculative frenzy, Rand Paul said last week that “it would be an honor to be considered” by Romney as a running mate.

Paul’s straightforward denunciation of talk of an “alliance” with Romney might not put to rest the theorizing. On Monday ThinkProgress published an analysis of 20 debates and found that Paul hadn’t directly attacked Romney in any of them — despite attacking other rivals a total of 39 times.

“The other candidates in this race, as Congressman Paul has said many times, represent the status quo,” Howard told TheDC, “something he has fought against his entire political career.”

Watch:

Ron Paul: Santorum an ‘addict on conspiracies’

Suspicion mounts concerning Mitt Romney and Ron Paul conspiracy

Ron Paul has attacked Rick Santorum 20 times in the debates, but never gone after Mitt Romney. Credit: Getty Images

Looking at their respective policy positions, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul should be fierce enemies.

examiner.com | Feb 27, 2012

by Ryan Witt

After watching the last few debates, many analysts and casual observers are beginning to wonder whether Mitt Romney and Ron Paul have formed some sort of secret alliance to benefit each other.  The two men have gone relatively easy on each other during the primary season, while attacking other candidates like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich with a great deal of vigor.  Using a Survivor-style strategy the two men may be teaming up to eliminate all of their competitors.  The only problem is that Paul’s supporters believe they are trying to elect Ron Paul president.  However, if a conspiracy between Paul and Romney really does exist, Paul’s supporters may, in fact, be working to elect Mitt Romney president.

At this point Paul has virtually no chance of winning the Republican nomination for president.  Romney has won three contests in New Hampshire, Florida, and Nevada.  Rick Santorum has won in Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado.  Newt Gingrich won South Carolina.  Paul, on the other hand, has no victories and is currently not polling anywhere near Romney or Santorum on the national level.

Read More

• Mitt Romney Is A 33rd Degree Freemason
• Ron Paul and Freemasonry
• Bilderberg steering committee member is Ron Paul’s biggest campaign donor