Mark Levin’s extensive exposition of Ron Paul and Mitt Romney alliance

Two nights ago Mark Levin spent an hour and a half of radio time on this Ron Paul/Mitt Romney alliance. I decided, instead of just posting a piece of it, to post the entire thing.



It’s long but it’s good.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
newest oldest most voted
markjlm
Guest
markjlm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSVi45vfA6o&list=UU8EtvIxtcgOdfKpOber0JLw&feature=player_detailpage

Ron Paul has consistently lumped Mitt Romney in with the other candidates. To say someone is not conservative, when they are, in fact, not conservative, is called telling the truth. When you vote for bailouts, you are not a fiscal conservative, when you vote to raise taxes, you are not a fiscal conservative. Ron Paul has never voted for tax increases, EVER. That makes him the most fiscally conservative member. This whole “alliance” thing is a figment of someone’s creative imagination. Ron Paul is running to win, and he has my vote.

Dace
Guest
Dace

Thanks Mark, this is need to know!

conspiracygirl
Guest
conspiracygirl

Statements like these by Rush and Levin illustrate how little these guys know about Ron Paul. Seriously, they have no idea how much RP supporters are rolling on the floor laughing at this whole thing. Neither Rush nor Levin have got a clue as to what makes Ron Paul tick, so they just make stuff up, and to try to make sense of the bizarro scenario they have created they have to come up with more and more of these crazy conspiracy theories.

conspiracygirl
Guest
conspiracygirl

Well, actually I will vote Third Party if RP doesn’t get the nomination. If write-in votes were counted and not just thrown in the trash I’d write-in Ron Paul for sure, but since they’re not my vote will likely go to the LP.

conspiracygirl
Guest
conspiracygirl

ROFL. Will Santorum have to prove he’s a better choice than Romney AND Paul…? How OUTRAGEOUS! How horrible!!! Why that’s — that’s — that’s exactly what Santorum ALWAYS had to do…

But I do hope many of Levin’s listeners will start reading Rothbard. It’s about freakin’ time they heard some sense….

Sally
Guest
Sally

Tu ne cede malis!

Jonathon Hunt
Guest
Jonathon Hunt

I believe you are generally on the right track, Mark. Modern day conservatives and libertarians do differ, especially when it comes to social issues. However, conservatism was very much closer to libertarianism back in the glory days of the Old Right. There still existed some differences, but not to the degree that exists by the modern approaches to these philosophies. Anyways, Paul hopes that Santorum gets the nomination. It will explode the GOP into two factions after Santorum inevitably looses the election in 2012; he is undeniably too socially conservative to receive any votes from anyone other than hardcore Republicans. Who’s going to be there to pick up the pieces? The faction that characterizes liberty and applies it consistently; it’s going to be the libertarians. Test you? Sure will. What would Reagan say about Libertarianism? http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan ————————————————————————————————– REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that… Read more »

Arthur Stordahl
Guest
Arthur Stordahl

All you need do is watch survivor, who will win, who will be voted off the island. And the alliances ensue….

Nalejbank
Guest
Nalejbank

If you are for limited constitutional government then I feel sure we will find ourselves on the same page on many issues. Of course, no one agrees completely on everything but my mission is to promote individual liberty as well as responsibility. Since liberty cannot exist without limited government, I promote and teach “legal government”, as taught by Frederic Bastiat in his book – The Law. When Ron Paul was interviewed by the several Attorney Generals on December 3rd of 2011, he was ask what book he would suggest for everyone. His reply? Frederic Bastiat’s, The Law! As a vital part of one’s liberty education and for you to share with others to help win back our liberties under the Constitution, I implore everyone to read it carefully. It’s free and it will do the trick! It’s short but packs a HUGE punch! Please, my friends and countrymen, click and… Read more »

AmericanGold
Guest
AmericanGold

Mark Levin is obviously on George Soros’ payroll. Please, people, do your own research. His vicious tone of voice belies every nonsensical accusation he makes.

KenInMontana
Editor
KenInMontana

That is a fairly serious charge, do you have evidence to support that charge, or is it just political partisan hearsay?

AmericanGold
Guest
AmericanGold

Mark belongs to Soros. What total nonsense he spouts here!! Please, people, do your own research. This man is lying to you.

The Sinick
Guest
The Sinick

If you are for ‘War’ – at any $cost, for any $reason, at any $time and praise Reagan as Jesus-Incarnate, then you are a de-facto ‘friend’ of Mark Levin. If you are not a fan of the above sequence, you are an enemy, unpatriotic and un-‘conservative’. Tom Woods has already taken Mark Levin to the proverbial ‘woodshed’ on a few occasions, to which Mark Levin responded in his usual manner – to sling ad-hominem attacks and evade engaging the debate in stark terms, along with little or no historical data to support his positions. The simplistic arguments offered up by Levin – in this particular case, grasping-at-rumor and innuendo-as-fact, are the mark of a failed ideal. Frustrated that a being a warhawk is no longer popular with the electorate, Levin finds himself tied up in knots, verbally flailing about, in an attempt to create controversy where none exists. I have… Read more »

Christina Kirkland
Guest
Christina Kirkland

This was painful to listen through…jeez, what a snooze….
I find it horribly ironic that while every American has watched each of the “flavors of the week” & Romney work diligently to distract and divide from Ron Paul and now the Neocon media networks have decided to turn the tables and accuse Paul and Romney of what has been afflicting the Paul campaign from day one. Republicans wont win without Ron Paul supporters. Period.

KenInMontana
Editor
KenInMontana

Republicans wont win without Ron Paul supporters. Period.

That goes both ways.

James Curran
Guest
James Curran

What I find hysterical is that if Romney gets the nomination, all you people hating on Mitt will still vote for him.

However, you will not find many Ron Paul supporters voting for Romney.

And who are the fakes here?

AmericanGold
Guest
AmericanGold

I doubt that even one Ron Paul supporter would vote for Romney. Instead, we will write in Ron Paul. “Never let it be said that we stood by and did nothing.”

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Dr. Strangelove

Rush mentioned Paul may be looking for the VP slot for his boy. They may have something there.

AmericanGold
Guest
AmericanGold

Ha! Not even maybe. Rush is so out of touch with truth.

conspiracygirl
Guest
conspiracygirl

Heck, is Rush still doing drugs…?

Johann Streit
Guest
Johann Streit

Son of a Ron Paul!

davidrugenstein
Guest
davidrugenstein

HUM!!…. something to think about here!!!!!

Patrick Allen
Guest
Patrick Allen

Ron Paul, you fool, we talked to the Soviets because we were forced to negotiate with them, BECAUSE THEY HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS. If they didn’t have nuclear weapons and wanted them, we wouldn’t have to negotiate them. Don’t you see, we’re trying to avoid a Cold War situation with Iran?

I_am_a_lead_pencil
Guest
I_am_a_lead_pencil

“Don’t you see, we’re trying to avoid a Cold War situation with Iran?”

Because ‘hot’ wars are much better than cold ones.

AmericanGold
Guest
AmericanGold

Good Grief, Patrick! Pinch yourself. Who is this “we” you refer to?

David Ricks
Guest
David Ricks

As I read the comments here I laugh at the stupidity of the writers. It’s like when I watched my two dogs fighting over which one got to chase the ball. I laughed and said to myself “They’re just dogs.” In this case I laughed and said to myself “They’re just fools.”

SLDKFJs
Guest
SLDKFJs

LOL

You guys rail on the “mainstream media” and establishment but support whoever Levin/Hannity/Limbaugh tell you to.

What a joke. Grow up and become adults and take a look around.

Maybe just consider for a minute the guy being systematically attacked by the mainstream media and establishment republicans you claim to dislike. Maybe you are being lied to?

Shirley Ramsey
Guest
Shirley Ramsey

Mark who? Oh, the same one that was singing Romney’s praises in ’08? Gotta be one of two things: (1) He must have invited Romney to be on his show and got turned down and his narcissistic personality absolutely had to get even…(2) He gets to be on the FOX NEWS occassionally, it is no secret that they have gone through the “flavor of the month’s” and they have warned him that if he endorsed Romney this time, he won’t be on the show anymore (hmmm that too would be part of the narcissistic personality thing)…that’s all I can figure.

1Michae1
Guest
1Michae1

Did anyone notice how we are talking about some alliance rather than discrediting the claims made that Santorum is NOT a conservative. I wonder why…

KenInMontana
Editor
KenInMontana

Because “the alliance” is the topic of thread. Not whether Santorum is or is not a Conservative.

Or are you just trolling for a fight?

1Michae1
Guest
1Michae1

You are right, I should clarify. I don’t mean to poke at what “we” are talking about here. Just the topic brought up by Levin.
The topic is about poor rick getting ganged up on. Nothing can defend what they were saying about Santorum, so it has to be about some conspiracy against him.

KenInMontana
Editor
KenInMontana

Well let’s see we have a progressive RINO and a Libertarian who masquerades as a Republican, trying to tell us who is or isn’t a Conservative? And we should believe either one of them, why? Sounds like a non-starter to me.

OldDan
Guest
OldDan

I agree. We should stick to Santorum’s voting record. Of course, Santorum (and maybe Levin and a few others) would prefer we NOT examine his voting record. It is far from conservative.

conspiracygirl
Guest
conspiracygirl

So are you trying to say that someone who is a liberal cannot adjudicate as to whether someone else’s stances are conservative or socialist or libertarian…? That a conservative cannot adjudicate whether someone else’s position and record have been socialist or liberal…? A rather bizarre conclusion I think….

Perhaps all conservatives should stop calling Obama a socialist and whatever else they call him — unless they are the same….

KenInMontana
Editor
KenInMontana

No, what I am saying is that those that are not honest about themselves cannot be reliably accurate in defining what some one else is or is not.

conspiracygirl
Guest
conspiracygirl

Well, you know Ken, the name of the Republican Party is the Republican Party, not the Conservative Party. It contains people from all across the spectrum. Ron Paul was elected as a Republican long before he ever ran for office on the Large L Libertarian ticket, but since then he has run on the Republican ticket — because the GOP and Dems have created laws to prevent third parties from challenging their hold on power. It is not illegal to belong to more than one party. And I don’t hear Republicans whining much about the neocon infiltration and takeover of the GOP. These people aren’t conservatives either — hence the name they gave themselves to distinguish themselves from conservatives.

OldDan
Guest
OldDan

If “the alliance” is the topic of the thread, why did Levin stray so far from the topic (e.g., Ron Paul hates Lincoln, Murray Rothbard is an anarchist, etc.). Could it be that Levin had no proof whatsoever that there was an alliance? Just curious.

KenInMontana
Editor
KenInMontana

I haven’t noticed any comments in the thread from Levin as of yet. As far as I heard Levin is expressing his opinions, and as we all know opinions are “colored” by where an individual stands. As for myself, I don’t believe Rothbard is an anarchist, nor do I believe that Paul hates Lincoln (although it is obvious that Lew Rockwell has no love for the man). On how Levin sees Paul, I believe Levin is looking at those who surround Paul and like many, wonders why, if Paul does not agree with their views, are they so “highly placed” in his political apparatus.

1Michae1
Guest
1Michae1

Ron Pauls letter about Reagans debt and deficits was supposed to prove Paul is NOT a conservative?? Because falling in line and supporting higher debt and deficits is a conservative thing to do? Got it.

OldDan
Guest
OldDan

LOL. Levin gave us a lesson in how to prove Ron Paul is a conservative without really trying.

James Murr
Guest
James Murr

Mark Levin is an enemy of the constitution. He is a hypocrite and a joke and an embarrassment to an already embarrassing medium

brazen_infidel
Guest
brazen_infidel

As some of these posts demonstrate all too vividly, there’s a natural and long-standing antipathy between libertarians and big government social conservatives, despite their occasional agreement on economic issues. Just because Dr. Paul went after Sanctorum in the debate, it doesn’t mean he’s in bed with Romney; it just means that he and Romney both have their own reasons to try and burst the recent Sanctorum bubble. You big government conservatives like Mark Levin, who have been dissing Dr. Paul from the get-go anyway, need to untie that knot in your knickers because you are sounding like a bunch of crybabies now.

By the way, before the invective starts flying in this direction, I don’t actually support Dr. Paul’s candidacy because of his isolationist foreign policy views. However, on all other issues he deserves to be treated with respect as the conscience of our party.

AmericanGold
Guest
AmericanGold

Nice post, brazen-infidel, except Ron Paul is not an “isolationist,” as Soros likes to brand him. He is against the evil practice of turning America’s wealth over to war-mongers. Mothers and fathers and babies (ours and theirs) are being obliterated in the name of “democracy?” Wake up!

OldDan
Guest
OldDan

Isolationist, non-interventionist, whatever, Ron Paul would do well to note that “why muslims hate us” is no longer the issue. They do, and they also hate freedom. Their “religion”, which is in fact a strict political system, is as incompatible with our constitution and western tradition as communism and fascism. Their goal is to bring down our system of government and replace it with Sharia. Anyone who embraces their religion as “a religion of peace”, or a religion that deserves constitutional protection, is either naive or treasonous.

brazen_infidel
Guest
brazen_infidel

Hey, I too am against the evil practice of turning America’s wealth over to war-mongers. And, unlike many of the posters here, I won’t deny that the US has been meddling in too many places throughout the world. However, I don’t believe that liberty can survive (or be restored) in the United States if the entire rest of the world has been divided up between the Islamofascists and the socialists.

Marcus J Wilson
Guest
Marcus J Wilson

wtf is wrong with you people?

MadeleineTector
Guest
MadeleineTector

Rand Paul has spoken ot several people and denied that anyone offered him the vice Presidency or that his Father was offered any Vice Presidency either, this is just a rumor that is going around because it makers ron paul look bad. Rand said his Dad was never even offered anything. I don’t listen to Levine anyway, I don’t like him although that is beside the point.

c4pfan
Guest
c4pfan

Come on, Ron Paul is obviously working an angle to hurt Santorum to keep Mitt in the race. It doesn’t take much to figure that out. I just don’t get how Santorum didn’t know that going into it, because Ron was making rounds on TV snipping at Santorum and not Romney for days before the debate.

You know what the press or Mitt lackey Christie or Sununnu will focus on whenever there’s anyone that threatens Romney’s chance at the nomination.

However, Santorum nor Gringrich have some lackeys speaking for them. The press is already full on board for Romney.

All we have left is a brokered convention and hoping people don’t fall for spin and vote to keep Santorum and Newt in the race.

William Stearns
Guest
William Stearns

And they call us RP supporters conspiracy theorists… *sigh* Occam’s Razor folks. Romney is a NE establishment/Rockefeller Republican. No one voting for a man like that will pick Ron Paul as anything but last choice, and possibly would support Obama over him (just as they did against Goldwater in 64 and Buchanan in 92). Thus Ron’s campaign sees no benefit in trying to woo his voters.

He_SCORES
Guest
He_SCORES

“All we have left is a brokered convention and hoping people don’t fall for spin and vote to keep Santorum and Newt in the race. ”
Are you serious? It’s obvious from the the posts here the majority of you wouldn’t know a true conservative if he bit you on the a**. There is only one candidate who will get enough of the Independent and cross-over vote to defeat Obama. Period. Without those votes, the Dems get it for four more years. Embrace the horror.

OldDan
Guest
OldDan

If you really want to know the truth about why Ron Paul has been going after Santorum, watch the early debates where Santorum arrogantly dismissed Paul as dangerous and unstable, and condescendingly rolled his eyes when Paul was speaking.

When that first occurred, my wife and I came to the same conclusion that Santorum had opened up a hornet’s nest. Any politician with as sorry a record as Santorum would do well to be polite and diplomatic, rather than resort to playground tactics.

Virus-X
Member
Virus-X

Now, you’ve done it, RS. I’ve got Romney-supporters (AKA, anklebiters) mad at me, and refusing to even listen to this. In spite of his own words being played out, in spite of Rumpelstiltskin’s own words being played out (or psychotic rants and screams being played out), they still won’t listen, and call it ‘opining’, instead of the presentation of historical data. Not only do I have a clearer picture of Willard, not only do I have an even clearer picture of the psychotic racial supremacist Ron Paul, but I also have a crystal clear window looking right at the people that so blindly support them, just as doggedly as any O-bot supports Obama.

c4pfan
Guest
c4pfan

That’s been the GOP since forever.

Have you guys not seen what happened to Sarah Palin?

Debby
Member
Debby

Thank you for posting this. I would hate to have missed this explanation.

Ron Paul looks and tries to act innocent but those are the ones you have to watch. Mr. Mitt has an uphill battle and he’s looking mighty tired these days.

Jim Land
Guest
Jim Land

BTW that passage that he is reading at the 19 minute mark……would anyone like to point out anything in that passage that is not factually accurate and a legitimate complaint?

OldDan
Guest
OldDan

I have no doubt it is accurate.

Now, can anyone prove that Paul and Romney are teaming up against the “conservatives” (so-called)? Or did Levin use this bit about Reagan to divert attention from the fact that he has no proof whatsoever that Romney and Paul are in cahoots?

Jim Land
Guest
Jim Land

Well the stuff about Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk is a lie. Tom Woods often quotes these two favorably and he is the founder of the Ron Paul superpac.

KenInMontana
Editor
KenInMontana

You’re talking about the Tom Woods that is a founding member of this organization?
http://www.facebook.com/leagueofthesouth?sk=info

Jim Land
Guest
Jim Land

He has also been at many left leaning organizations, but that doesn’t mean he agreed with them. He still stuck to his principles that he always does. If you are trying to paint him as a racist than good luck finding any racists comments from him. Please support your argument with stances from Woods rather than guilt by association please.

KenInMontana
Editor
KenInMontana

No it was a question, I put no stock in anything anyone has to say who is attached so firmly to anyone’s campaign, let alone running a superpac, which certainly places his statements in a less than objective light. As to his works/writings, I have read several, some I find good, others not so good, many color him as having NeoConfederate sympathies (others would just flat out label him as one). As to his connections League of the South, whether he continues as member or not matters little to me. But his association with it fits the pattern of many of those who have held and do hold positions in Paul’s campaign organization. I don’t need to do anything to alienate people from Paul’s candidacy, many of his supporters do that far better than any opposition campaign operative ever could. My overarching point here is that Wood’s opinion could hardly… Read more »

Jim Land
Guest
Jim Land

I had no idea what you were going for there, but it certainly looked like an attempt to discredit the person I brought forward just because he attended one meeting of an organization back when he was 21, and before the stances of the organization were really established. The entire point of my first comment is that Levin wasn’t telling the truth that Ron Paul type libertarians don’t like Russell Kirk and Edmund Burke. Tom Woods is a Ron Paul style libertarian by any measure, and he founded the Ron Paul superpac. He speaks favorably about Burke and Kirk in many of his lectures. Even the stuff about Friedman is a little over the top. What Friedman says in his youtube videos and non-scholarly books (Capitalism and Freedom) is shared by Austrians. Austrians differ with Friedman in some of his higher level stuff that really only Economists talk about. Just… Read more »

KenInMontana
Editor
KenInMontana

I was a Libertarian for a while (philosophically, I have never been an official member of any party), I walked away from it when Libertarianism became inundated with Anarchy of every stripe and was drifting away from the classical liberalism of the founders. In all honesty and truthfulness, of late the goings on in the Austrian School and the Mises Institute communities is looking like something akin to the “night of the long knives” or a purge of sorts. Politically, for simplicities sake, I guess you could label me and “Independent Constitutionalist” that caucuses with Republicans/Conservatives, which I have witnessed on many occasions, confuses the heck out of many Paul partisans (which I confess, amuses me to no end). As to my comments/observations on Woods, he has indeed “flamed” individuals for their positions on Ron Paul, in fact he made an appearance on this blog once and did just that,… Read more »

Jim Land
Guest
Jim Land

Well okay. You disagree with Woods which is your prerogative, but that does nothing to refute my point. Levin asserts that we Paul supporters hate Burke, Friedman, and Kirk.

Virtually all Paul supporters would support Woods as representative supporter.
Woods does not condemn these men. Granted being from different schools of thought they would have their intellectual disagreements. As you can read from the forum link I posted, the average engaged Austrian follower supports Friedman more than they oppose Friedman.

Therefore Levin is wrong about his characterization of Paul Supporters as Friedman, Burke, Kirk haters.

KenInMontana
Editor
KenInMontana

Well in part I would agree that Levin is known to, shall we say, “overstate” his case (which in my opinion, in this case he has, in regards to this Friedman “thing”), due to his passionate nature, add to that he is also, what I would call a “hard line Conservative” in the same fashion I would classify Woods as close-enough-makes-no-difference, a “hard line Libertarian” and I see neither as infallible. Although I have seen self identified Paul partisans attack Friedman and Burke, would I color all of Paul’s supporters in that same light? No, no more than I would classify all Liberals as communists, I know more than a few that have mild socialist tendencies (I know, rare birds) at the same time they are ardent outspoken defenders of the Bill of Rights as it is written, as most Conservatives and strict Constitutionalists read it (although I do feel… Read more »

AmericanGold
Guest
AmericanGold

I would guess from all of this that you have confused yourself. Having a strong conviction does not make one “less than objective.” Ferret out the truth for yourself and pin your hopes to that. You can know your truth by the feeling of peace that engulfs you when you speak it with conviction, as if to God, Himself.

KenInMontana
Editor
KenInMontana

You mistake me, I am not confused, not at all.

OldDan
Guest
OldDan

Neo-Confederate, defined:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Confederate

Neo-Confederate, as defined the left-wing extremist Morris Dees and his radical Southern Poverty Law Center:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/neo-confederate

KenInMontana
Editor
KenInMontana

I know the definition of NeoConfederate, and I am fully aware of what that pinhead Dees has to say, you are aware that Dees classifies anything to the right of his position as a hate group.

OldDan
Guest
OldDan

LOL. He certainly does.

Alex Europa
Guest
Alex Europa

http://youtu.be/2QILWEnufEs

Listen carefully to what Ron Paul says starting at the 0:12 mark. In his own words he won’t stand by someone that is against his (and his constituents’) beliefs.

People can say, “well, he’s a politician, he’ll say anything to get elected.” But luckily for Ron Paul supporters, with RP, what you see is what you get. He’s the only candidate who isn’t a liar and a fraud, so it’s easy to believe him.

KenInMontana
Editor
KenInMontana

Actually, Paul is no different than any other candidate, he is a member of the professional political class that has taken up residence where our founders envisioned a citizen legislature being. You think he is really any different than the rest? You keep reminding yourself of that, while he flies first class on your dime.

Jim Land
Guest
Jim Land

Lawrence O’Donnell hates Ron Paul, and thinks he is wrong on everything, but even he will admit that there is nothing inconsistent with his flying habits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcn15iZSjQo

If you don’t believe me just do a youtube search on “lawrence o’donnell ron paul.” He is trashing Paul in all of his other videos.

KenInMontana
Editor
KenInMontana

I never said he was different than anyone else in congress in regards to his flying habits and that is precisely the problem.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/paul_flies_luxe_on_your_dime_xIbR1W3Pzpqy6c7zRDTgxO

BTW; the excuse he gives for it is lame as well, he could get the same perks flying business class and get the same perks when it comes to rescheduling flights.

Alex Europa
Guest
Alex Europa

Wow, you really are pretty twisted up on his issue. My point is that UNLIKE the rest of the people in Congress he still returns money at the end of the year. He is ACTUALLY fiscally responsible, unlike the rest of the nitwits in Congress…did you miss the part in the article that YOU posted where is says that Paul opted-OUT of the Congressional Pension Plan? How much money do you think THAT will save? Let me make it easy for you: Just TWO MONTHS of not receiving the pension money after retirement will cover the cost difference between ALL of his 1st Class and Coach flying since 2009. But I fail to understand why this issue actually matters to you…especially considering the fact that he returns money every year.

Is this REALLY the best you can do to come up with reasons not to vote for Ron Paul?

KenInMontana
Editor
KenInMontana

I have a myriad of reasons as to why I do not choose to support Ron Paul, first and foremost is the fact that he is a career politician, which is a rather large negative in my view. I did read the entire article, and I am aware of his fiscal practices and his voting record and methods. Ron Paul casts his votes to play to his partisans, as does any politician, I am disgusted with politicians of all stripes, career politicos and perennial candidates top that list. I would rather flush the lot of them, Paul included, and return to an actual citizen legislature that would work effectively to constrain government to its Constitutional limits. You and the rest of Paul’s partisans would do much better trying to “sell” your candidate, than resorting to treating those who do not support him as neophytes and unlearned morons.

Jim Land
Guest
Jim Land

I highly doubt that your career politician thing is a true principle with you. I have a hard time seeing you stop supporting Jim Demint or Allen West, or insert any of your favorite politician here just because they spend x amount of time in Washington. As long as they keep making good speeches, and vote according to your preferences than I would doubt that you would vote against them.

KenInMontana
Editor
KenInMontana

I highly doubt that your career politician thing is a true principle with you.

Try me.

Jim Land
Guest
Jim Land

Well again. Think about your favorite politician or office holder. If they kept doing what made you like them so much in the first place for the next 20 years would you suddenly stop supporting them because they had been there 20 years? It kinda reminds me of the politicians who support term limits, but then don’t leave office. They get called hypocrits and understandably so, but if all politicians who believe in term limits self impose term limits than there will never be term limits.

KenInMontana
Editor
KenInMontana

“Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct.” –Thomas Jefferson

I have a consistent record of voting against incumbents in congress (But, never for a Democrat) Presidents are a different matter as they are already limited. Politicians can never be relied upon to keep their word, they can be relied upon to work in their own self interests though.

AmericanGold
Guest
AmericanGold

Right on!

AmericanGold
Guest
AmericanGold

You probably didn’t look up the word “myriad” before you used it. Also, if you knew anything about Ron Paul, you would realize that he stands precisely for that which you prefer, “an actual citizen legislature that would work effectively to constrain government to its Constitutional limits.” As for your parting comment, well?

KenInMontana
Editor
KenInMontana

So you are telling me how I think? If Paul were truly “a citizen legislator”, he would accept nothing more than a stipend for expenses, in truth he is a career politician like all the rest. You’re a bit more subtle with it than other Paul partisans, but in the end your methods are the same. Sorry, no sale.

Alex Europa
Guest
Alex Europa

Wow, really? Can you show me ANY OTHER candidate in HISTORY who voted so consistently on the Constitution?

And regarding his flying first class, he STILL comes in WAY under budget…which I highly doubt the rest of Congress can claim: http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-03-29/ron-paul-returns-unused-portion-of-office-budget-to-us-treasury/

c4pfan
Guest
c4pfan

He’s been in office forever and has done nothing. His son has done more than him.

Alex Europa
Guest
Alex Europa

So, just to be clear, you would rather have a candidate that has sold his soul for the “greater good” than the ONLY candidate who has remained honorable and stayed true to the OATH that he SWORE to the Constitution?

Alex Europa
Guest
Alex Europa

Ron Paul is the most “Anarchistic” candidate? Nice rhetoric. Gag me. I guess we should all just get on the Obama bandwagon that the Constitution is a “living document.” And the PRESSITUTE “mainstream” media pushing this “alliance” means NOTHING to me. They are SO off base when it comes to honest reporting of politics that I’ve almost completely stopped listening. Please, show me just ONE thing that they have got right recently…really, JUST ONE. I’ll close with this quote to explain the Ron Paul strategy of knocking off opponents, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” The goal is to make Ron Paul and Mitt Romney the last two men standing, because Mitt Romney is the EASIEST to take out. Have you ever watched an episode of Survivor? Do they take out the weakest or the strongest opponents first? The strongest, because they know that as time goes on,… Read more »

AmericanGold
Guest
AmericanGold

Yep! Nicely stated.

A_CAT
Guest
A_CAT

This is hocus-pocus b.s.
Romney is above all of this nonsense. This cat knows a winner and his name is Mitt!

FreeManWalking
Guest
FreeManWalking

Three little kittens lost their mitten…

StNikao
Guest
StNikao

Romney is certainly not above non-truth.

He is severely non-factual.

KenInMontana
Editor
KenInMontana

In truth, he is up to his eyeballs in it.

W.
Guest
W.

Ron Paul claimed after the Arizona debate that he was actually second in the number of GOP convention delegates. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhzAyLIJqBo

The Paul camp claims this ‘fact’ is actually being hidden by the MSM: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hONl8bAhRGI

They claim Santorum’s primary wins are non-committed delegates and are really Ron Paul delegates:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/02/16/ron-pauls-delegate-advantage/

Here are several articles that attempt to explain away the report of a Paul/Romney collusion: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/category/blog/paultick/

It is wearying to try to figure out who is conservative and who is lying, who will serve this nation, not themselves or a political interest.

May all evil and deception will be exposed.

MaxSteele
Member
MaxSteele

Wow, now I fully realize why they call him the great one. Listening to Mark Levin describe the reasoning behind the Romney – Paul Alliance so methodically and with evidence makes all the TV journalist look so enemic.

OldDan
Guest
OldDan

The Romney-Paul alliance is a myth dreamed-up (I believe) by the liberal Joe Scarborough. The Santorum team jumped on this myth to help prop up a sagging campaign. The fact that Mark Levin is perpetuating this myth says a great deal about his character (or lack of it). Folks, you are making a big mistake supporting Santorum. He is an arrogant, phony, condescending whiny-bird (just like Levin). I have been following him for years (he was my senator in PA), and he is no conservative. He is a big-government, big-spending, “do as I say” authoritarian. Please don’t rely on ratings by so-called conservative organizations. A check of his actual voting record will confirm the truth of my statements. The closest thing we have to a conservative who has the balls to take it to Obama is Gringrich. Santorum will sell you out, just like he did the conservatives in Pennsylvania.… Read more »

MaxSteele
Member
MaxSteele

Wow, is delusional a word in your vocabulary? Even the most non-observant person can see that Paul does not criticize Romney. I do not need your supposed conspiracy theory (you sound just line Paul actually) to point that out for me. You have the right to your own opinion of course but you do not have one factual response to anything that Levin said in his show but then have no problem calling him an “arrogant, phony, condescending whiny-bird”. No facts just persoal insults. Then you add a link of Ron Paul refuting the alliance…duh…Like Paul is going to say, “Yes Larry, I am an anarchistic, self promoting, corrupt official just like what I say everyone else is. You got me.” From the beginning I favoured Santorum and Gingrich and either one would represent the republican party well. Romney and Paul are a disaster waiting to happen.

OldDan
Guest
OldDan

Is condescension a word in your vocabulary? You might want to add it. You see, condescension does not prove an argument. It only proves you are arrogant in your beliefs to the point you are convinced of something that may or may not be true. I have heard Ron Paul criticize Romney many times since the beginning of this campaign. If you had been listening to anyone besides the “Grate One”, you would have heard the criticisms as well. Unlike you, I have researched the candidates (all of them) on my own, and I came to these conclusions long ago: 1) Romney is a flip-flopper. He sticks his finger in the air and changes his positions accordingly. If the nation demands he be a small-government, fiscal conservative, that is what he will be. He is also one helluva smart businessman. 2) Ron Paul is a strict constructionist. Strict constructionists are… Read more »

OldDan
Guest
OldDan

Okay, I admit did not respond to your claim that I “do not have one factual response to anything that Levin said in his show.” That statement is true. Frankly, I find him nauseating, and I quit listening to him years ago. But, I “took one for the team” and actually listened to the part of Levin’s show posted above. As I figured, his very first piece of “evidence” was bogus. Starting about 7:25 into his rant, Levin, referring to a WFPL interview, states, “It reads as follows, and maybe this is it, “Kentucky’s junior senator said it would be an honor to be considered as a possible running mate for presidential candidate Mitt Romney.” Levin followed up with, “BTW, I think Rand Paul would be a good Vice President. but that’s beside the point”. LOL. That is the oldest trick in the book–trying to appear impartial when your goal… Read more »

AmericanGold
Guest
AmericanGold

Whew! Lot of intelligence here, exhaustively researched. Thank you for getting it on record.

anotherinterestedreader
Guest
anotherinterestedreader

Very important information on the Romney/Paul alliance.

FreeManWalking
Guest
FreeManWalking

The establishment has been not-so-slowly taking over the Party since Reagan left office, and continue pushing moderate liberal candidates and platform down our throats. For the conservatives the GOP primary has been screwed up from the git-go. I don’t think anyone was enthused with Dole or thought he had a chance. At least Bush 43 had some charisma, and a little more conservative than his dad. McCain, an embarrassment, but I have to give him kudos for choosing Sarah and bringing her on the scene. You know that by the time she finished her speech at the convention, McCaint was having deep regrets because he knew he was upstaged by her for the rest of his carrier. Why have a big tent republican acceptance in the primary that doesn’t hold to a core conservative platform. This gives us moderates like Willard who is 0bama-lite, and R.Paul and his whacky foreign… Read more »

capelady
Guest
capelady

The conservatives have never had control of the Republican Party… it was a revolutionary movement that was begun with Ronald Reagan, and he was fought tooth and nail by the GOP establishment but was able to get popular support that put him in office… an then it was picked up by Newt Gingrich… and as Speaker of the House he was tenacious enough and fearless enough to accomplish the most conservative reforms in Congress in the 20th Century. The Democrats had been in control of the House for 40 years!!! True conservatives have always been in the minority and that is why as soon as the RINO’s regain control they manage to reverse any progress that has been made. They are perfectly content feathering their nests and slowing down the liberal agenda, they do not believe we can overturn it. That takes vision… like Ronald Reagan had, and like Newt… Read more »

FreeManWalking
Guest
FreeManWalking

Speaking of Newt, did you catch his speech at the CA convention yesterday?

http://www.cagop.org/live/

The link still works for a replay.

capelady
Guest
capelady

I think I caught part of it but thanks, I would like to see the whole thing. I am so impressed with him and inspired by him, I try to watch everything I can find! Now, if voters would just wake up and pay attention! I find it difficult to believe that anyone who as any sense at all and listens to Newt will not be convinced that he is the man to lead America out of the mess we are in!!!

1Michae1
Guest
1Michae1

I don’t mind most of the things he says (minus creating moon bases while we are bankrupting ourselves)…. it is his past actions that show who he really is.

capelady
Guest
capelady

I don’t know how old you are, Michael, perhaps you are too young to remember, or like me there was so much going on in your life that you were not paying attention… but what Newt accomplished in 1994 was nothing less than miraculous – and he paid a very heavy personal price. If you want to be properly informed in the face of this primary it is important that you see this, and share it if you are as impressed as I am. This is a documentary that was created by the media back then…. it is done in a very bipartisan way and it was a real eye-opener for me. It is on YouTube in 15 parts, but the entire video is posted at this link. It is WORTH your time to put the conservative movement in Washington DC in perspective! Very educational! http://acutemania.net/newt-gingrich-and-the-1994-republican-revolution/

1Michae1
Guest
1Michae1

Due to your respectful reply I will take a look at the link. I can’t imagine it will overcome him supporting TARP and many other anti freedom positions though. Do those positions bother you at all?

capelady
Guest
capelady

They do, of course… but there are no perfect candidates out there. You can even find fault with Ronald Reagan’s record if you are a purist, which is a luxury we cannot afford. Rather than zero in on every vote and stance, I have tried to look at the big picture – and then listen to what they have to say today. This documentary is very comprehensive and I saw a few liberal faces I haven’t seen in a long time… it was not produced by people who supported Newt, but it gives you a very good idea of what he was able to accomplish, the opposition and dirty tricks of the liberals who fought him tooth and nail (including the 84 frivolous ethics charges which almost bankrupted him and took several years for him to be cleared of, which oddly never made the front pages!) and even the resistance… Read more »

1Michae1
Guest
1Michae1

My fear is electing another “conservative” who will follow an anti capitalist agenda and give free enterprise a bad name. It still bothers me that people refer to bush as a free market deregulator.
I agree there is no perfect candidate. Ron Paul to me has the perfect domestic policy and is the standard for pushing economic freedom. I can understand those who don’t like his foreign policy though. And he isn’t all that clear or charismatic, but he is consistent. I’m always interested to hear others opinions on RPs fiscal record.
I will take a look at your link tomorrow!

capelady
Guest
capelady

I was just listening to the documentary again and it is fascinating insight into the way Congress works, and the tension and differences in ideology between the left and the right. They tried to get a balanced budget amendment and term limits but without a GOP majority in the Senate, they were unsuccessful.. but it is amazing what they could accomplish – and I find it interesting that the Republican warnings about our debt are really coming home to roost now. (And I agree with you about George Bush… he was not a fiscal conservative at all!) You are right on about Ron Paul’s foreign policy – I think that is very dangerous and would be a serious concern. Let me know what you think of the documentary when you get a chance to watch it. It is long, but worth the time just to understand the dynamics of the… Read more »

1Michae1
Guest
1Michae1

I’m not sure why one of your replies isn’t showing here, but only on my email. The book is “the third wave”. I haven’t read it but there are bizarre statements about the constitution needing to be redone because it is outdated. Decide for yourself, I don’t think you should take anyones word for anything.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/06/while-in-congress-gingrich-co-sponsored-418-bills-with-pelosi/
Many of these could be no brainer types of things, but it’s a red flag.
I don’t understand the claim that Ron Paul isn’t conservative because he went against Reagan. He was with Reagan until he started doing non conservative things like running up the debt and deficits. He left the party when they abandoned their principles. Fiscally speaking, what would you say is the difference between libertarians and conservatives? In theory both believe in economic freedom so I don’t know what the difference is. I appreciate the civil discussion as well!

capelady
Guest
capelady

If you watched the documentary, Newt mentioned that book teaching his class in regard to how technology was going to change the world and we had to prepare for that and take advantage of it. I don’t know about the rest of it. Ron Paul has been in Congress for many years and accomplished absolutely nothing… and his foreign policy is naive and dangerous. How he can say that Iran is not a threat to us when they are putting missiles in Venezuela and working with Hezbollah on our border is beyond me. I am voting for Newt because he has real solutions to the problems that America faces and a remarkable record of getting things done in Washington in spite of a liberal Senate and President. His agenda included term limits and a balanced budget amendment, which were not passed in the Senate at that time, but if we… Read more »

librtifirst
Guest
librtifirst

Paul would run libertarian if the two party dictatorship didn’t have elections so controlled that he could get on all the ballots as a libertarian. The media doesn’t cover their candidates either. So what party does a libertarian run in if he wants to make a difference?

FreeManWalking
Guest
FreeManWalking

That sounds so lame and such a cop out to me.

I have to screw up your process because I can’t figure out how to get on the ballot as a libertarian.

Why doesn’t he run in the democratic primary if he just wants to screw up the process?

librtifirst
Guest
librtifirst

Its called the two party dictatorship because they both use the same tactics. They shut out all other parties. It is the ultimate system of preservation to the status quo. No legitimate political revolution can happen without major societal unrest. They can just shut it down if that happens.

There is no choice. Run republican or democrat.

FreeManWalking
Guest
FreeManWalking

I think they are running without you and your candidate… Better hurry us before you miss the bus.
http://thirdpartypolitics.us/blog/category/libertarian-party/libertarian-party-2012-elections/

librtifirst
Guest
librtifirst

Heh, heh. Nice try. I’m sure the press will send droves of cameras to broadcast their convention. They are hoping for a historic 1M votes for their party nominee. Why bother when their head guy is in the republican party getting the coverage? They should be backing Paul. I guess they have to keep the platform going, and be on the ballots when Paul loses the nomination.

FreeManWalking
Guest
FreeManWalking

First you say you can’t play in your own field because the dems and reps won’t let you have one.

I point you to the field and you complain there won’t be any press.

And have the gall to say that once Paul is out on his duff here you think that Paul can just step in and be coronated as Mr. libertarian. I doubt they will play as nice as the GOP has.

Which brings us back to Levin’s excellent dissertation exposing that Paul is in cahoots with willard to sink the conservatives.

librtifirst
Guest
librtifirst

Libertarians will have their own candidate, unless they hand it over to Paul. I would expect Paul to run as an independent. The press controls exposure, therefor you won’t compete without it. The press is in with the two party system, and rejects alternatives. Paul would likely not be included in debates in the general, just as has happened in the past with third party candidates.

I’m not complaining that there won’t be any press, I am pointing out how the system works, and why a libertarian would run as a republican. Paul has won 12 republican races, and lost one libertarian race in the same district. What changed? Not his positions.

James Curran
Guest
James Curran

What I find hysterical is that if Romney gets the nomination, all you people hating on Mitt will still vote for him.

However, you will not find many Ron Paul supporters voting for Paul.

And who are the fakes here?

FreeManWalking
Guest
FreeManWalking

It is all about putting the brakes on and trying to prevent us from going off the cliff.

Anarchist could care less and would be helping push toward the cliff.

You say “However, you will not find many Ron Paul supporters voting for Paul.”

I say “That’s because Paul won’t be on the ballot”.

On The Mark
Member
On The Mark

This is outstanding! I learned a lot here about Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, and more. I feel like I’ve just been in school. Is this stuff gonna be on the test? Can I borrow your notes?

Matthew Fuino
Guest
Matthew Fuino

How do you defeat a man running for President that is incorruptible, consistent, will “really” cut spending, bring our troops home and loves the Constitution? Make up lies about him and try to marry him with the least popular running mate. For those who believe that he will join Romney, wake up. Go online and watch the words from RON PAUL himself, not people in the media. Lastly, go by the rule “follow the money” and see who is donating money to each candidate. Make your own decision.

Back to Top of Comments