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.

Secret unit members Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak operate as a covert team

Israel’s Likud party leader Benjamin Netanyahu (R) shakes hands with Defence Minister Ehud Barak before their meeting in Jerusalem in this February 23, 2009 file photo. Forty years before becoming Israel’s top decision-making duo, Netanyahu and Barak first made news on the blood-stained wing of a hijacked Belgian airliner. That mission in May 1972, crystallizes for many Israelis the view that Netanyahu and Barak still today operate as a covert team, crafting strategy with a maverick intimacy born behind enemy lines and a clubby elitism that eclipses their markedly divergent personalities and politics. REUTERS/Ammar Awad/Files

In secret unit, clues to top Israeli duo’s chemistry

Reuters | Mar 28, 2012

By Dan Williams

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Forty years before becoming Israel’s top decision-making duo, Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak first made news on the blood-stained wing of a hijacked Belgian airliner.

Disguised as tousle-haired mechanics, with slim pistols concealed beneath their white overalls, Israel’s future prime minister and defense chief had stormed the Sabena jet at Lod airport near Tel Aviv as part of Sayeret Matkal, the secret special forces regiment which Barak, then aged 30, led.

Netanyahu, eight years younger, was largely untested in counter-terrorism operations. “It was the first time I had ever held a handgun,” he would later remember.

The dozen or so clambering commandos killed two Palestinian Black September gunmen and overpowered two grenade-wielding women with them. One of the 100 hostages died but the raid was hailed a master-stroke, the only casualty among Barak’s men being Netanyahu, shot in the arm by a comrade – “He took it just fine,” the unit’s then deputy chief, Danny Yatom, recalls drily.

That mission in May 1972, one of the few by Sayeret Matkal on which details have been made public, crystallizes for many Israelis the view that Netanyahu and Barak still today operate as a covert team, crafting strategy with a maverick intimacy born behind enemy lines and a clubby elitism that eclipses their markedly divergent personalities and politics.

The inner dynamics of the relationship resonate widely, as friends and foes weigh up whether they might order an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites. But this powerful odd couple, the old leftist and the right-winger, the ex-commander and his more popular former subordinate, the cool tactician and impulsive visionary, is an enigma, even for those who know them well.

Giving little away, Barak himself told a radio interviewer last week: “There is no difference between us on how we see things … There are always differences on this detail or that, but all in all we see things eye to eye.”

That is quite a statement for a man who, when Labor party leader in 1999, usurped Netanyahu as prime minister after an election where Barak campaigned to halt his liberal assault on Israel’s socialist economic model and seek a deal with Palestinians that was anathema to Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud.

And the portrayal of harmony, now that the shifting ground of Israeli politics has since 2009 brought them together in coalition, belies discernable public differences on Iran, albeit differences of emphasis rather than substance on whether Tehran, for all its denials, is seeking a nuclear weapons capability.

Netanyahu, a conservative ideologue fond of quoting Winston Churchill, casts an Iranian bomb as a second Holocaust in-the-making which must be prevented at all costs. Barak, a famously unflappable and cold-eyed political pragmatist, prefers to portray reining in Tehran as an international challenge and to remind his compatriots of Israel’s regional military supremacy.

“RESPONSIBLE ADULT”

Whether the balance of their views augurs a “pre-emptive” attack on Iran, or conversely, a hand-on-hilt resignation to its atomic ambitions, is, constitutionally, for Netanyahu to decide. But his reliance on his former Sayeret Matkal commander has some wondering who really calls the shots on such fateful questions.

“Barak’s status is nothing less than partnership in the prime ministership — ‘Prime Minister II’,” wrote Boaz Haetzni for the right-wing news service Arutz-7, whose contributors are often critical of Netanyahu’s support for his defense minister.

Amir Oren of the liberal Haaretz newspaper argues much of Barak’s support in the wider electorate derives from a belief among voters that he “would function as the ‘responsible adult’ on the Iranian issue and restrain Netanyahu” from rash decisions liable to plunge the region into unbridled conflict and fray Israel’s alliance with its vital ally in Washington.

Yet the idea that Netanyahu is subordinate to Barak, or even on an equal footing, is ridiculed by confidants of both men — including several who served with them in Sayeret Matkal, the Israeli version of Britain’s SAS or the American Delta Force.

Yatom, who was also on the Sabena airliner and later headed the Mossad spy service, acknowledged the lasting bonds forged in combat: “You will always remember your commander as your commander, even if you overtake him later in life,” he said.

But while he did not doubt Netanyahu’s continued esteem for Barak, Yatom told Reuters the latter was fully aware that it was his former trooper who “was the one elected prime minister by the Israeli people, and has responsibility for everything, both successes and failures”.

Other loyal comrades also dismissed the idea that army memories could distort the political hierarchy that puts the prime minister – popularly known as Bibi – firmly on top.

Dani Arditi, another Sayeret Matkal contemporary of the pair, said speculation about imbalance in the Netanyahu-Barak chemistry came from “people with an agenda, who are trying to cast aspersions about the way they function as leaders”.

“Barak has a big effect on Bibi, because he is a serious and accomplished person,” said Arditi, a former Israeli national security adviser. “But in the end, it is the prime minister who will make the difficult decisions.”

FORMATIVE YEARS

Sayeret Matkal was profoundly formative for both men.

Short and boyishly thin, the young Barak seemed an unusual choice for an outfit specializing in unsupported desert forays and long-range lightning raids, the mainstay of the unit before counter-terrorism duties beckoned. But his motley skills, from navigation to lock-picking, an analytical mind and his drive to prove himself distinguished Barak, who eventually became armed forces chief and Israel’s most decorated soldier.

“The skinny youth who was insecure about his physical abilities turned into a brilliant and leading officer,” wrote Moshe Zonder in “Sayeret Matkal”, a history of the regiment, whose name translates as General Staff Reconnaissance Unit.

For Netanyahu, the military was a family affair, making his ascent into its combat elites less out of the ordinary. His dashing elder brother Yoni commanded Sayeret Matkal and was killed leading the 1976 rescue of Israeli hostages at Entebbe, Uganda, taking his place in the pantheon of national heroes.

Netanyahu’s younger brother, Ido, also served in the unit.

Conscripted into Israel’s most select and trusted strike force, all three sons were also discharging an obligation to their father, Benzion Netanyahu, a scholar of anti-Semitism to whose hawkish views the prime minister sometimes openly defers.

An upbringing by a historian who gave his sons a sweeping vision of Jewish history and their place in it is seen by those who know him well as vital to understanding how Netanyahu sees the potential threat to Israel of a hostile, nuclear Iran.

POLITICAL HIERARCHY

Other veterans of Sayeret Matkal recall contrasting styles of leadership from the two men that has been reflected in their political fortunes: the American-educated Netanyahu was more easy going and likeable; Barak, raised on a poor collective farm, zealous to the point of callousness about his men.

For all the controversy his hawkish policies provoke in Europe and the Middle East, Netanyahu’s political standing at home is strong, with approval ratings hovering around 50 percent. Barak has seen his popularity plummet since last year, when he quit Labor amid deepening policy drift and infighting.

At the helm of his new Independence party he may not muster enough votes in the next election to stay in politics. While a business career between spells in politics left him wealthy, Barak now needs Netanyahu if he wants a future with influence.

As a senior adviser to Netanyahu, Ron Dermer, put it: “Netanyahu is unchallenged politically. The differential in terms of political power is so great that it does not factor in. There is a very clear hierarchy. It is very clear who’s on top.”

But he also played down the importance of the two men’s political duels a decade and more ago: “The past adversity between them is, I would say, the aberration,” he said.

“What they have underneath, their shared history in the army, is the bedrock. There is a basic level of mutual respect.”

Supporting that view of a relationship that runs deeper than politics, Zonder, the historian, recalled a Sayeret Matkal reunion in 1997. Netanyahu was prime minister, Barak leader of the opposition. The premier arrived last: “Netanyahu hesitates about where to sit and then finally grabs the free place next to Barak,” Zonder wrote. “Barak leans his elbow on Netanyahu’s knee, a proximity that is a little surprising in its intimacy.”

Dermer dismissed as “psychobabble and ridiculous” the idea that Barak reins in Netanyahu on tinderbox issues like Iran.

But he acknowledged the defense minister does enjoy remarkable autonomy, flying to Washington almost every other month for talks with the Obama administration, whose ties with Netanyahu are testy and which wants more time to see whether international sanctions on Tehran can halt its nuclear work.

The two form a complementary team in handling their key ally. Barak taps reserves of U.S. goodwill from his two years as Labor premier when another Democrat, Bill Clinton, was in the White House. Netanyahu, for his part, enjoys voluble support in an Israel-friendly Congress and might feel more comfortable should a Republican unseat Obama at November’s election.

Wondering if a strategic symbiosis was at work between the two Israelis, as they and their American counterparts balance diplomacy and military threats to try and bend Iran’s will, veteran Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea asked: “Is a division of Labor being created between them, with Netanyahu pushing for action at any price while Barak is keeping his options open? Is Netanyahu with the Republicans and Barak with the Democrats?”

HIGH-YIELD, HIGH-RISK

Influencing Washington is a vital part of Israeli diplomacy on Iran. Neither Netanyahu nor Barak makes a secret of preferring that the United States, with its superior arms and global clout, lead any operation against Iran – Israel’s ability on its own to cause lasting damage to atomic plants is limited.

But few would rule out the possibility of Israel going it alone if it thought that was in its interests – and for clues to how its leaders would take such a calculated gamble, many are tempted to look again at their common history in Sayeret Matkal.

The unit’s record of pulling off high-risk, high-yield feats in defiance of convention and caution, might persuade Netanyahu and Barak that taking on Iran is not beyond Israel’s reach.

Then again, the commandos’ doctrine prefers sneak assaults in small numbers, not the mass bombing raids that would be required to set back decisively Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

For some, the drumbeat of Israeli preparation for war has been an indication it may become inevitable. Yet veterans of the secret strike unit that molded the two leaders have many memories of preparing audacious operations that never got a green light from the government and were quietly shelved.

But, as quoted in Zonder’s history of the unit, Netanyahu himself, speaking at the 1997 Sayeret Matkal reunion, reflected on lessons it had taught him about seeing through long-term goals: “There are missions that are scheduled, months or even a year or two in advance,” Netanyahu said.

“There is a certain objective that you home in on, harnessing all of your emotional and other resources to achieving it … And if it’s not achieved, you try again.”

Yet those who fear Netanyahu’s nightmare vision of a nuclear Iran could lead him into starting a war whose outcome would be far from clear might also note the tone of wry, self-awareness in his recollection of the Sabena hostage rescue. It could have gone badly wrong and a string of mishaps during the operation included Netanyahu himself being shot by his own side:

“I have to tell you that all I remember is one thing,” he said. “Getting up onto the plane was easier than getting off.”

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.

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

The Satanic Core of Libertarianism

Libertarianism is part of the Illuminati Dialectic with Communism

Essentially, two seemingly opposed forces advance the same goal: a world police state governed by an oligarchy of billionaire Satanists.

henrymakow.com | Feb 25, 2012

Satanism defines man by carnal rather than spiritual desires,  “liberating” the former and crushing the latter.  De Mandeville’s Fable of the Bees demonstrates that Libertarianism is rooted in Satanist dogma.

by Memehunter

The obscure hero of Libertarianism: Bernard de Mandeville

 

PIC Bernard de Mandeville, the Satanist who inspired Libertarianism and Austrian economics)

Born in Rotterdam in 1670, Bernard de Mandeville came to England in the wake of William of Orange’s accession to the throne. A doctor by profession, Mandeville became better-known as a satirist. More importantly, Mandeville was also a Satanist, linked with the Blasters and Hell-Fire Clubs of 18th-century England.

Although Mandeville’s name has been all but erased from contemporary mainstream economical discourse, many free-market thinkers lavish glowing praise on his insights.

In a lecture delivered at the British Academy in 1966, Friedrich von Hayek extolled Mandeville as a “mastermind” and “great psychologist” whose theories anticipated those of David Hume, Adam Smith, and Charles Darwin, and praised his poem The Fable of the Bees as a “remarkable” work.

According to Hayek, Mandeville’s ideas “returned to economic theory” through the work of Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian School by way of 19th-century German historian Friedrich von Savigny.

Read More

Related

S.F. billionaire quietly funds Ron Paul super PAC

Romney/Paul alliance has pundits buzzing

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney reacts to the audience during a break as Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, walks across the stage in the background during a Republican presidential candidate debate at the Capitol Center for the Arts in Concord, N.H., Sunday, Jan. 8, 2012. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)

Deseret News | Feb 23, 2012

By Eric Schulzke

Rick Santorum had a point during Wednesday night’s debate when he said, “You have to ask Congressman Paul and Gov. Romney what they’ve got going together. Their commercials look a lot alike and so do their attacks.”

What really got everyone buzzing was Paul’s devasating slam on Santorum, when moderator John King asked Paul why he labeled Santorum a fake in recent ad. “Because he’s a fake,” Paul said, as he laughed and then objected to Santorum’s excuses for voting for legislation he opposed and then offering to repeal it.

Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham had a meeting of the minds with Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Thursday, and both agreed a conspiracy was in play.

Related

Rush: I Predicted a Romney-Paul Tag Team

Joe Scarborough on MSNBC is convinced there’s something going on, as was his guest, Mark McKinnon, who advised both the George W. Bush and John McCain campaigns.

“What’s the deal here?” Scarborough asked McKinnon. “You know there’s either a spoken or unspoken deal between Mitt Romney (and Ron Paul). This is the sort of thing nobody in the media likes to talk about but everybody in the game knows is going on. I mean, is Ron Paul hoping that his son gets a job in the cabinet? Is he hoping his son is going to be the VP nominee? What’s going on here, because there’s a deal between these guys.”

At Hot Air, Ed Morrissey doubts that anything overt has been said. “So why is Paul attacking Santorum instead of Romney? Paul and Romney have a long-standing friendship, but don’t forget that Santorum went after Paul on foreign policy in numerous debates. I’d call this more of a personal choice on Paul’s part rather than a conspiracy, in the absence of better evidence.”

You don’t need to imagine a conspiracy to see an alliance, says John Hayward a Human Events. “As a matter of political tactics, Paul – who has openly stated that he doesn’t expect to actually win the nomination — has good reason to go after the current Alpha Not-Romney.”

It will be interesting to watch what happens when and if Hayward’s observation begins to dawn on Ron Paul’s legions. Do they turn on to Romney as an acceptable alternative? Or do they do they turn off altogether? And how long do they remain in denial about Paul’s actual intent in the race (which is certainly to advance an agenda but just as certainly not to advance to the White House)?

Talk of a Ron Paul-Mitt Romney alliance won’t go away

Ron Paul, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney debate Tuesday in Mesa, Ariz. (Don Emmert / AFP/Getty Images)

latimes.com | Feb 24, 2012

By Michael A. Memoli

Mitt Romney and Ron Paul — friends, and a political odd couple. But are they in “cahoots” in the Republican primary fight?

Rick Santorum can’t help but think so these days. Though Paul hasn’t campaigned yet in Michigan, which at this point is a showdown between Romney and Santorum, Paul has a television ad running there that calls the former Pennsylvania senator a “fake conservative.”

It’s an attack Paul gleefully repeated in Wednesday night’s debate, prompting Santorum to later publicly speculate about a Romney-Paul alliance.

“Their commercials look a lot alike, and so do their attacks,” he said in the spin room after the Arizona tilt.

Sen. Rand Paul, son of the Texas congressman, added more fuel to the speculation the same day when he told reporters in Kentucky that he would be “honored” to be considered as a potential running mate for Romney. Hardly a firm commitment, but enough to drive the meme.

“Whether it’s true or not that there has been an actual meeting of the minds in conversations and strategy developed between the two guys, it is clear that there’s a hands-off policy between Paul to Romney and vice-versa,” conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said on his show Thursday. “Paul does not attack Romney. Ron Paul attacks every one of Romney’s opponents; Romney doesn’t attack Paul.”

Related

Rush: I Predicted a Romney-Paul Tag Team

Paul, who has maintained a fairly substantial campaign war chest throughout his campaign, has had a knack for going on the air against some of the lead “anti-Romneys” of the moment.

So what would the two have to offer each other if there is an alliance?

For Paul, it’s popularity among GOP voters that Romney needs. Exit polls from the initial primaries and caucuses have shown Paul tends to have support from younger voters, lower-income voters and those who lean independent – all areas of weakness for Romney.

But Paul’s voters also have been the most resolute — to use a term Romney used to describe himself during Wednesday’s debate – in support of their chosen candidate. There’s hardly a guarantee that they would swing toward Romney if Paul dropped out.

What does Romney have to offer Paul? If the former Massachusetts governor wins the nomination, a seat at the table. Paul remained in the 2008 GOP race far longer than any other challenger, even after John McCain had clinched the nomination. But when it came convention time, he was nowhere to be found – not on stage in prime time, at least.

Paul’s delegate-driven strategy, if successful, will guarantee him a say no matter who the nominee is. But some believe he may have the best chance of playing a significant part under Romney. And if not for Paul himself — who said he won’t run again for his House seat even if he doesn’t win the nomination — then some think he’s trying to secure a future for his son, Rand.

Romney’s backers deny any alliance, informal or otherwise.

“Clearly Congressman Paul has said things about Gov. Romney that have been favorable, but they’ve also been accurate,” Tim Pawlenty, a former contender and now Romney backer, said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” today. “I know Mitt, and I know Ron Paul. … Probably the last person to quote, unquote cut a backroom deal in American politics would be Ron Paul.”

Rand Paul:’It would be an honor’ to serve as Mitt Romney’s vice president

“I don’t know if I can answer that question, but I can say it would be an honor to be considered,” said Mr. Paul.

The State Column | Feb 23, 2012

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, told reporters in Kentucky after a speech Wednesday that he would be honored to serve as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s vice presidential running mate, WFPL News reports.

The son of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul gave a speech in Louisville, Kentucky Wednesday, and afterwards reporters asked him if he would accept an offer from Mr. Romney to be his running mate if the situation presented itself.

“I don’t know if I can answer that question, but I can say it would be an honor to be considered,” said Mr. Paul.

Related

GOP rumour mill: Could Ron Paul’s son become Romney’s running mate?

The Kentucky senator’s father is currently trailing Mr. Romney by a wide margin nationally in the Republican primary race, and still has not been able to amass a primary election or caucus victory of his own.

In early January while campaigning with his father in Iowa, Mr. Paul stated that he would not close the door on becoming a vice presidential running mate in 2012.

Furthermore, Mr. Paul’s father, has not been as critical of Mr. Romney as he has of his other rival candidates throughout the race. Although the majority of their domestic and foreign policy views are not closely aligned.

The odds of Mr. Romney choosing him as a running mate are low though, considering that he has been endorsed by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, who are both considered to be likely VP picks if Mr. Romney wins the Republican nomination.

The pairing of Mr. Romney and either of the Pauls would be interesting. Mr. Romney has not commented on the possibility of selecting the Kentucky senator as a running mate.