Dude, you don't remember in '09 when he admitted to being "the water boy for the party", or however he put it? I also seem to recall him saying he was tired of it...guess a couple extra digits on his check recharged his batteries...
I'm not rationalizing anything. I am spelling out the reality for you. You see this conspiracy where I see two guys who, yes, want to knock down Santorum, but on different things, and rightly so. If anything, you'll get a Romney/Santorum Ticket to ensure the crazy evangelical pastors and priests can instruct their flock to vote for Romney on election day. What more do you need? A fucking goddamned picture!? I never pictured you as being THIS obtuse. The Paul supporters would ever accept Ron Paul sitting second chair to Romney. LMFAO
Not at all. I know Republican doesn't necessarily equal Conservative. Re-read what I actually said. He milks being a Republican as long as it's convenient yet makes statements alluding to the fact that he won't support the nominee if he doesn't like the party's choice. He's made a pretty darned good living out of being one and has ridden the party's power systems to as high and close to the presidency as his views will take him. Unless he's changed from the last I heard, he won't support anyone else if he doesn't get the nomination. Real integrity would mean he ran either independent or joined a Libertarian party instead of coasting on someone else's work.
If you tell me your real name, I'll write you in, too. I like your ideas better than Romney's. But I'm having a hard time believing Paul would accept to be VP for Romney, and even less that he would call on everyone to vote for Romney in order to beat Obama. From Paul's point of view (and mine), there just isn't enough of a difference between them to matter that much. So I'll probably either be voting for Gary Johnson, or writing in Ron Paul again.
I want to believe that Ron Paul can look at someone, and just know when they're going to die. Thus making this logical.
And of course the candidate is responsible - from however-many thousands of miles away - for the fact that one of his supporters bothered poor widdle you, right?
If a Paul is on the ticket I'll vote Romney. Then begins the plan for killing Mittens. Sniper rifle or motorcycle magnet bomb are the top contenders at the moment.
Short term pain for long term gain. When candidates lose their parties usually end up trying something different next time around. By voting for the Bushes and McCains and Romneys you are ensuring that they are the best quality of candidates the Republicans need to choose. Now imagine that Romney is defeated resoundingly at the election, in 2012 you will see a much different type of candidate. Or to put it another way: the reason Romney is the frontrunner now is that people like you voted for McCain in 2008.
If anything, it proves one reason Romney would never ask Paul to be VP. He'd practically be painting a target on his back. Which is also why Obama chose Joe "Bullet Proof Vest" Biden.
You're forgetting at least a couple of things. The impact of the Tea Party, for instance. And that the reason Romney is the front runner is more a function of the timing of the up-and-comers in the Republican ranks than inertia. The alternatives now (Paul, Jr., Rubio, etc.) are largely inexperienced on the national level. And, unlike the Dems, most Republicans tend to want someone with some more job-appropriate experience in their presidential candidate. Your analysis is nice and has its points but I don't think it considers enough factors.
I always thought it would be a struggle for Mr. Obama to find someone less qualified than him but he managed to pull it off. He may not have the experience but he always did have the political savvy.
Romney's held elective office for a total of four years. Seems to me that the general Republican consensus last time around was that four years was woefully inadequate.
The Tea Party changes things how? It seems like you are telling those who share tea party values that they should in fact vote for Romney.
Or at least that became the consensus when they suddenly had to explain why Obama's experience wasn't sufficient but Palin's was.
You are forgetting what all the Democrat supporters seemed to forget four years ago, that Obama was the presidential candidate (the one who actually governs) while Palin was the vice-presidential candidate (the one whose role varies from being an advisor to being a fill-in for boring state functions, depending on the president). Quite a large number of us said very clearly that, while we could accept Palin for the VP spot, we would never accept her for the presidential spot. She desperately needed the exposure to national politics that being VP would have given her before she could even be considered for running for president. So calling it a "consensus" it not exactly true. It's what some people said, while plenty of us disagreed.
At any rate, whether she was a good governor or not, she does have executive experience as governor (of Alaska). Obama can't even claim that.
True. Nevertheless, she didn't have much executive experience, and Alaska isn't really the hardest state to govern, either. So she wasn't close to what I want from a president. Of course, that only meant that Obama was even further, but the Democrats were so busy trying to prove that their presidential candidate was as qualified as the Republican vice-presidential candidate, they never seemed to grasp the point that the two offices are radically different.
I voted for Ron Paul in the recent primary in my state and would of course vote for him against Obama. I am very curious to see what Ron Paul will do at the end of the process if he is not the nominee, which is quite likely. I am also tired of the lesser of two evils bullshit and would love a 3rd party run and think the time is right. Romney or whoever is going to have a tough time beating Obama regardless. Obama will give a pretty speech in September and the sheep will wake from their slumber and most media outlets will go full force Obama ass licking. Hate to say it, but the truth hurts. If Obama does win, by the end of the second term the Democrats will be done for a few decades, and hopefully there will still be time to pick up the pieces of 8 years of this administration's absolute raving fiscal lunacy. This, along with a good 3rd party run now in 2012, will set up a decent three horse race in 2016. I keep hearing, "setting things up for Rand". Let's get Rand aboard now, keeping his seat in the senate. It's time to be bold. If Romney or whoever miraculously win, while it changes the 3 horse race dynamic, it's still very interesting. Democrats, still stinging from a 2012 loss and running god knows who, with Romney running on his record and GOP superstars Christie and Rubio on the sidelines towing the party line, Rand, more seasoned could make some noise challenging Romney for the nomination or running Lib/Ind. We have to start sometime to break this two party deathgrip on the USA. If Ron Paul does not run, and supports Romney, he has some explaining to do, and I hope I like what I hear from he, as well as Rand. And I'll likely vote for Gary Johnson even though everyone will tell me it's a vote for Obama. For the record, while I am no fan of Romney, but he is clearly the lesser evil to me compared to Obama.
If you think Obama's been a lunatic up 'til now (and he has been) just wait until he no longer has to concern himself with being reelected. A second term for Obama means a shitstorm for us.
Ron Paul doesn't give a fuck about party loyalty and will endorse Gary Johnson if anything. I kind of hope he doesn't run third party as the GOP will then have an excuse to point at instead of manning up and admitting that neoconservatives aren't really conservatives. But then that's like hoping the paint wasn't too badly scratched on the Titanic at this point.
