A Ron Paul Conspiracy Theory
Usually Paulist conspiracy theorists are inside the tent pissing out, but Mark Ames gives Paul a golden shower in his new piece in The Exiled (via). The elements of his case are that Ron Paul’s SuperPAC is headquartered in Salt Lake City, one of the founders is Jon Huntman Sr’s business partner, and the main contributor to that PAC runs a major defense contractor and supports a lot of candidates who are anathema to Paul’s principles. I don’t know if he’s right that there’s some Mormon collusion involved in Paul’s SuperPAC, but he’s right about this:
That might raise some potentially disturbing possibilities to a journalist or editor still interested in chasing down disturbing details and stories. Which probably explains why the media hacks aren’t interested in pursuing this possible angle, even though it’s staring them in the face. Instead, they’re trotting out a catalogue of fatuous “explanations” for the love-fest between Dr. Paul and Mitt Romney—explanations which have almost nothing to do with money and sleaze in politics, and everything to do with how Tiger Beat magazine might approach this election campaign.
Ron Paul isn’t giving Mitt Romney a pass in the debates because Ann Romney and Carol Paul are friends (as the Times would have us believe). He might be doing it in hopes of cleaving off Santorum and Gingrich to make it a two man race, but I don’t buy that, simply because both of those guys have done well enough in the race that they’re staying around no matter how many times Paul calls them “fake”. Being a paid stalking horse sounds a lot more plausible to me.
I suspect that Paul is being helpful to Romney to improve the chances of his son being tapped for the VP nomination.
March 1st, 2012 at 7:51 am
Ron Paul has a history of being a hypocritical douchewizard.
March 1st, 2012 at 7:57 am
@Linda Featheringill: Do you really think Romney would put that ding dong on his ticket?
March 1st, 2012 at 7:59 am
@mistermix: Nothing in recent history would suggest the republican candidate would do something stupid like that.
March 1st, 2012 at 8:01 am
This doesn’t surprise me. If Paul were such a pure Libertarian he would stay as far away from the Rethuglicans as possible seeing as his “principled” positions are almost diametrically opposed to theirs. So why is there? Because that’s where the money is and he’s looking to trade his loyal foot soldiers’ work for a nice fat payoff. QED
March 1st, 2012 at 8:02 am
@mistermix:
We are talking about Romney, right? That douchebag is so desperate, I wouldn’t put anything past him.
March 1st, 2012 at 8:04 am
@mistermix:
It would be tempting to do so on the theory you get all the crazy Ron Paul fans to flock to your campaign and put out yard signs and bumperstickers on their cars, not to mention the small donations. No other VP candidate would do that for you.
March 1st, 2012 at 8:04 am
@Linda Featheringill:
It’s possible, but I would imagine that would turn off a significant segment of his Fountainhead Army who thinks Pope Paul is “principled.”
How would he square any part of his “philosophy,” loosely cribbed from his reading of Atlas Shrugged, with Governor Romneycare-Bomb-Iran-now?
March 1st, 2012 at 8:04 am
@Napoleon: Does the rEVOLution transfer from the father to the son?
March 1st, 2012 at 8:06 am
@Linda Featheringill: This. Even the Paul fan I talk to thinks he’s trying to set up his son’s political career.
March 1st, 2012 at 8:09 am
You’re assuming that Paulites are rational actors. Where’s your evidence?
March 1st, 2012 at 8:11 am
Paul, being a crackpot, has some specific political behaviors. For example, he’ll cross whatever red lines he has to in order to get attention, and then he’ll try to stay in the spotlight. And being pals with Mitt is hardly even a red line.
March 1st, 2012 at 8:11 am
The business of politics taking priority over principles? You don’t say!
March 1st, 2012 at 8:18 am
OT: A few threads ago, we discussed whether Israel hated Obama. A poll was taken in Israel and TPM summarizes it for us.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/a....._right.php
No, they don’t dislike Obama.
They also aren’t all that eager to attack Iran:
So there.
March 1st, 2012 at 8:32 am
Ron Paul and his son:
It’s not completely crazy. Rand might pull in some of the Paulites. He could form a link with the right-wing evangelical folks. He’s not a damnyankee.
March 1st, 2012 at 8:35 am
When a man gives his kid a roll of quarters to go play video games while the man goes to bang his mistress, the kid probably doesn’t know or care why he has the quarters. These guys are just giving Paul a Sudbury-sized roll of quarters to go showboat, simply because it serves purposes other than what Paul himself would actually support.
Rand Paul actually might not be such a bad choice for Romney, in that Rand has amply demonstrated that he is willing to do ideological 180s to serve whoever is handing out the quarters on a particular day. Perhaps not an ideal choice, but Rand is somebody that Romney can understand.
March 1st, 2012 at 8:37 am
I’m only surprised that Nader isn’t on their payrole this time. Guess they figured the rubes might get a clue.
March 1st, 2012 at 8:45 am
@Linda Featheringill: Well, their government probaby pays as much attention to popular opinion as ours does. That’s why it’s called representative, doncha know?
March 1st, 2012 at 8:47 am
YUP!
March 1st, 2012 at 9:10 am
A couple of weeks ago the Willard spread some whispers about a possible Paul VP offer. I wondered how that would come about. Could the magic undie patrol be keeping the Texas loon in the race on purpose?
Looks like we have an answer to that question!
March 1st, 2012 at 9:32 am
Tiger Beat has more integrity.
March 1st, 2012 at 9:39 am
@mistermix: Nope, I don’t think so. But he might say he’d pick Sen.Paul (WTF? – that’s painful to type) on the ticket before flip flopping and not doing so.
March 1st, 2012 at 9:39 am
@Schlemizel:
If Willard brings Paul on board and wins, he’d better triple his Secret Service guard – Paulites are a spooky bunch of fascists.
March 1st, 2012 at 9:40 am
@Yevgraf:
It would be an interesting pick as it would certainly bring a new group into play for the Willard. But Ronnie is too old. Maybe Senator Ayn Paul but he does not have daddys cache yet.
This wouldn’t get the Willard anywhere with the Taliban wing but it could scrape some lameos off the coach & some of the “moderate” low-info morans to his side.
March 1st, 2012 at 10:01 am
I’d love to see what would happen if Obama came out and said definitively that he won’t go to war with Iran. Romney would naturally have to insist that he’ll wage the most conservative war with Iran anyone could possible imagine. The Paulbots’ reaction when Paul eventually throws his support to Romney would be fascinating. I’m sure many of them would make excuses and act like obedient cult members. But my anecdotal experience with them is that beyond candidate worship, the two issues they actually care strongly about are pro-weed and anti-war. I expect there’d be at least a fair amount of disillusionment.
March 1st, 2012 at 10:19 am
[...] (hat-tip Mistermix) [...]
March 1st, 2012 at 11:33 am
He’s hoping Romney will pick Rand as his running mate.
March 1st, 2012 at 11:43 am
Way off topic, but this made me laugh:
The WaPo has an article about a lawsuit by the Koch Bros against Cato over transfers of shares. They run a correction that reads:
Heh, indeedy.
March 1st, 2012 at 12:04 pm
@Linda Featheringill:
Right, Rand is more of a conventional Teabagger than his pappy. He’s opportunistic and mostly just living in Ron’s shadow.
March 1st, 2012 at 12:20 pm
@Linda Featheringill:
This this this this this…and better yet..the future presidential candidate
March 1st, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Isn’t this “Run With the Teabaggers’ campaign” the closest Paul has gotten to the core of the republican party? If so, is he angling for VP or a cabinet position? If the Republican nominees get the ballot tabulation rigged in enough states to win, that is. Or, as mentioned, party favors for his self accredited eye doctor son.
March 1st, 2012 at 2:33 pm
If every congressman would do what Ron Paul does in regards to voting against bills regardless of earmarks then our Economy would not be in a deficit and we would have balanced budget.
March 2nd, 2012 at 11:35 am