5 votes

Hindsight+Romney=Opinion

I'm just curious. Looking back on the last election, now that tempers are calmer, and we are older and hopefully wiser... What do you think about the fact that Romney was given a pass throughout the entire campaign by the RP campaign?

There was a lot of anger towards Rand for endorsing Romney. But didn't Ron Paul already do so by refusing to attack Romney, and openly defending him, while tearing through the other candidates?

It was easy to attack Romney. He had a virtual bulls eye on his back from Romneycare, and plenty of conservative ways to attack him. And yet, was routinely given the gentle hand.

Was it just Romney's turn and Ron Paul toed the establishment line? Was it that Ron Paul genuinely believed Romney to be a better candidate? Was he showing party allegiance to insure Rand would get a fair chance by the establishment when it was his turn? Was it possible that Ron Paul believed an Obama win against an infinitely beatable candidate like Romney would actually further the cause? Would you prefer to blame the campaign staff? If the last one, had the campaign gone rogue, or incompetent (if so, why didn't Ron Paul control them better)?

Do you believe something that I didn't list?

Just looking for honest opinions. I have my own opinions on the matter which would not be popular... But I already know what mine is, so just looking for yours.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

it took me at least a year after the last election to stop . . .

obsessing over the evil Romney. To stop thinking about how, if I ever met him, which is highly unlikely, I would give him a chop to the jaw--

and now you bring him up again. LOL!

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I think Ron was more interested in educating people

I don't think Ron ever intended TO WIN the election. He knew better. So to Ron, unless one of those empty suits was attacking him, he didn't even waste his time "playing politics" and trying to attack the empty suits.

I think Ron just recognized them all as empty suits.

I think Ron Paul was

hoping to solidify himself as the anti-establishment candidate, so he focused on weeding out the field. Remember how he destroyed all the other "anti-establishment" hopefuls. They dropped like flies after Ron set his aim on them one by one: Cain, Santorum, Bachmann...

Once he became the anti-establishment pick, he was going to absolutely annihilate Mittens. Make no mistake about it. It was a deliberate strategy, and he almost couldn't hold it back because it's not his nature. I think he wanted to attack but his campaign held him back on this basis.

But I honestly wish he wouldn't have listened to them. I wanted him to lay into Romney so bad. Cannon fodder is all he would've been.

John F

Romney was an actor in a play designed to

keep Ron Paul out of view.

I still believe the theory in my post here :-

http://www.dailypaul.com/252074/why-did-the-establishment-pu...

Didn't Romney threaten to destroy the Ron Paul name

if attacked? His team threatened to unleash a barrage of negative advertising. That's what I remember and that's why Ron Paul steered clear of Romney. I forget where I heard this. Maybe Doug Wead? Anyone else remember this?

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Yes, that's what Doug or

Yes, that's what Doug or someone said. That's exactly how I remember it too. And it's what makes the most sense.

Makes no sense... They could

Makes no sense... They could just release the info now and still destroy the name (killing Rands run). Nothing has ever made sense of that cycle.

Release what? You assume I

Release what? You assume I think there's a real scandal. That doesn't make sense. The issue is how much money would have been spent on negative advertising.

ChristianAnarchist's picture

Ron Paul is a fantastic guy

Ron Paul is a fantastic guy and I love him but I think they had something on him. We can't know what it is (because it's secret - hello) but it must be something that would greatly embarrass him and the Paul family. We are all human and I'm sure that Ron Paul has made a few big mistakes in his life (I know I have) and the goons must have a file on him. Who here would not "toe the line" if there's something that would hurt your family? Even the "Christian Anarchist" would "sing the praises of communism" if it meant saving my family. I think you would too...

Beware the cult of "government"...

I think campaign sabotage

But the campaign probably claimed credit of the grassroots by saying, "but look at all of the new fans, 8000 people showed up." Meanwhile Jesse Benton was early in Iowa to bribe a candidate for an endorsement in a scandal big enough to bring down the entire campaign if necessary. I think absolutely that the grassroots was sabotaged by the campaign. In colorado, we had grassroots chosen delegates that could've been elected but the campaign passed out Santorum delegate slates.

"Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito."

I don't think RP wanted to win...

I think also that RP is humble - almost to a fault - and when he looked himself in the mirror, he didn't see presidential material. He did agree to walk the walk and go through all of that hard work to spread his message.
I developed these ideas after years of hanging on his every word and watching every video. There were a few moments - I'm not able to give place or dates - where he seemed to be communicating that he understood he didn't have "it", whatever "it" is. Whether you consider it enough shellack, or polish, or gravitas. I think he recognized this in himself, drew a deep breath, and ran ahead to spread his ideas.
I propose he knew he was never going to win, and his tightest inner circle knew he was never going to win.

Educate yourself

IMO

Everything about Ron Paul's campaign changed abruptly after his breakfast with Bernanke.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

Romney's Mexican drug cartel connection

The Mexican Mormon War (Drug Cartels vs. Mormons …: http://youtu.be/LpIyaIHsJbc

9-11 was a panda job.

fascinating--

thank you--

I'm not surprised, but it's still interesting to see the detail.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

that's some crazy shit

I could not stop watching. Fascinating.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

wolfe's picture

I was expecting an Onion piece...

Surprised it was Vice. Watching it now.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Pretty crazy stuff huh?

?

9-11 was a panda job.

wolfe's picture

Yeah.

Very interesting to watch. It seems the Romney connection was a little overstated especially since Romney was wrong on the two issues that would have had the greatest positive impact on his family (drug law and immigration)...

But it was fascinating to see the Mormon response to the drug cartels and Romney's connection with the poly-Mormon branch... Etc.

Absolutely a recommended watch. (I love Vice).

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

In 2008 Romney had the support of about 20-25% of the GOP.

He lost to John McCain who had the support of about 30% of the GOP. In 2012, Romney had the support of about 20-25% of the GOP. His campaign did everything it could to prevent Paul delegates from having any influence at the convention. Ron Paul did not endorse Romney. He would have lost street cred if he had.
Ron Paul's campaign was one based on ideas. Attacking Romney or anyone is not compatible with that. In any case, Romney was going to be a loser. He was never ahead of Obama in the polls. Intrade proved he was a loser from the beginning. Naturally, the government stepped in and shut down Intrade after the election since it was contradicting the "horse race" model the media was portraying. Some of my close relatives voted for the GOP's "Old Yeller," despite my observation that it would be a wasted vote.
It is probably the case that Paul did not want to be accused of causing Romney's loss based on his attacking Willard, though I think libertarians should take credit. The message should be clear. Another "Old Yeller" will lose every time the GOP establishment fights a good chunk of the party to give him the nomination. The era of Reagan inertia is over. The number of people who will reflexively vote GOP is dwindling as they die of old age.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

SteveMT's picture

Who attacked who? Romney did not attack Ron Paul.

The other candidates were the ones doing the attacking as I remember. Ron Paul defended and returned those attacks. Romney did not attack, and he even gave Ron Paul a complement or two during the debates. If Romney had directly attacked Ron Paul, then Ron Paul would have done likewise. There were so many striking qualities about Ron Paul that separated him from all of the other candidates that these differences were obvious. Romney knew that he was the frontrunner and had the backing of the GOP. Romney did not perceive Ron Paul as a threat. If the debate was 1-on-1, there would have been direct attacks. Ron Paul had said that his campaign was more philosophical and ideological than it was an actual strategic campaign to win the nomination.

wolfe's picture

Now...

That is a good point. I do not recall Romney attacking Ron Paul directly, ever, and on occasion did make positive statements.

So another possibility would be a "gentleman's agreement" to play nice?

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Possibly just honor

I don't attack those who don't attack me either, I don't need an agreement with anyone for that.

Just open the box and see

Becuase Ron Paul

1. Loves his son so much that my guess would be he sacrificed a little of himself so his son could have his hand at it with the best introduction possible.

2. Or Benton looking into possible future ventures advised paul to keep it shut.

Overall it pissed me off. Especially at the debates, Ron could of just hammered him on the gay marriage, romneycare and it would of been glorious.

Ron Paul Did Go After Romney

Did you see the "Three Of A Kind" commercial?

He also went after him in one of the debates when he said he couldn't see how the GOP could win with a candidate who had supported government healthcare (does anyone recall that?).

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Thanks!

Plus I now recall more of what he said in the debate: That he couldn't see the GOP winning with a candidate who had supported TARP bailouts and ____(something I can't remember, maybe government healthcare)____.

I think Romney was the only other candidate at the time who had supported TARP, so that comment would have been directed at him.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

wolfe's picture

These ads did not get any significant play...

Showing that the ad was produced and aired a little doesn't change the basic premise which anyone who was watching could see.

Further, attacks against the others were fairly relentless.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Did any

Ron Paul ad get significant play?

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

no, on every question and

no,

on every question and hypothesis you proposed.

wolfe's picture

Then what are your thoughts on the way it played out?

Do you reject the idea that Romney was given a kit glove touch? Or simply my possible example explanations for it?

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/