With that political reality in mind, an obvious question arises: does Ron Paul have even a remote chance of winning the GOP primary without attacking Romney far more aggressively than he's done so far?
His campaign management team seems to think so, because if you go to the main page of his official campaign web site, you'll see three video ads featured on the right-hand side, only one of which even mentions Romney's name, and only then in the context of referring to him very briefly as a "flip-flopper" (which is like calling Hitler a "jaywalker"), and none of which mention any of the reasons why a vote for Romney is a vote for the NWO; and you'll see only one measly headline out of six that actually mentions Romney, and only then in the context of some pathetic fluff piece about why Paul "appeals to young voters more than Romney." No mention of Romney's support of the treasonous NDAA. No mention of his alliance with the treasonous Bush family. No mention of his support of the globalist cap and trade scam. And so on and so forth.
I have a lot of respect and admiration for Ron Paul (even though I don't agree with him on everything). But I'm afraid I can't say the same for his campaign team.
I am not convinced that this is something that Ron's "campaign team" is doing of their own accord. If that were true, then you would have to believe that the campaign team operates without the knowledge or consent of Ron Paul... which would bring Ron Paul's 'leadership' into serious question.
How could we believe in his leadership as president, if he allows his campaign team to blunder in such a huge way? He's allowing his campaign team to be 'soft' on his main adversary in the GOP race?
I don't think that's the case; I think they are marching to Ron Paul's orders.
If, at this late stage in the GOP primary race, Ron Paul is pulling punches against Romney, (which has clearly been the case), then you have to wonder why. Tarpley's interview suggests a reason:Webster Tarpley interview: May 3, 2012:http://tarpley.net/2012/05/03/romney-allied-to-netanyahu-ron-paul-allied-to-romney/
Tarpley makes these points (at appx 29 mins into the interview):
Ron Paul has not attacked Romney beyond calling him a "flip-flopper", something that Tarpley likens to calling Hitler "a jaywalker". He has not pointed out the most alarming truths about Romney; those truths that would lessen Romney's influence with voters, and possibly bring more people into the Ron Paul camp.
So why not? He starts with Romney's friendship with Netanyahu:
Romney & Netanyahu formed a friendship
while both worked for Boston Consulting Group in the late 70s.
This friendship was invoked by Romney in the Republican debates, when, in response to Gingrich's statements that the Palestinian people are "an invented people", he countered with
, "And if I'm president of the United States, I will exercise sobriety, care, stability and make sure that I don't say anything like this. Anything I say that can affect a place with -- with rockets going in, with people dying. I don't do anything that would harm that -- that process. And, therefore, before I made a statement of that nature, I'd get on the phone to my friend, Bibi Netanyahu and say, would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do? Let's work together because we're partners. I'm not a bomb-thrower. Rhetorically or literally."
(also see: http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/64950/romney-backers-laud-resolute-approach-to-mideast-policy/
Tarpley points out that this is Romney's admission that he would be "farming out the US/Middle East policy to Israel, with a blatancy and openness ..which goes beyond many earlier practitioners.
Romney is a hawk, and in concert with Netanyahu, would seek invade Iran, and, although Ron Paul doesn't mention this
, he would do so with the aid and support of the US.
If you've watched the Republican debates, you will have to agree with Tarpley's observation that Ron Paul did not attack Romney in any substantive way, but instead ran interference for Romney. At the time, I had to agree with Dig, that this was because Ron Paul was actually 'running' his campaign against the other contenders; so that as the convention neared, he would then focus his energy on defeating Romney with a full-on attack.
But that's not happening.
So Tarpley's belief is that Ron Paul is going easy on Romney because he believes he does not have enough delegates to win against Romney, and because of his concern for his son's future.
Perhaps Tarpley has a point.Rand Paul: 'It would be an honor' to serve as Mitt Romney's VP
The State Column | Feb 23, 2012http://www.indyinasia.com/2012/02/rand-paul%E2%80%99it-would-be-an-honor%E2%80%99-to-serve-as-mitt-romney%E2%80%99s-vice-president/
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.Kristol: There's room in the GOP for Rand Paulhttp://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/kristol_theres_room_in_the_gop.html
Bill Kristol, editor in chief of the Weekly Standard and a contributor to The Post, was one of the national security hawks contacted in March by allies of Trey Grayson with a warning about Rand Paul. "On foreign policy, [global war on terror], Gitmo, Afghanistan, Rand Paul is NOT one of us," wrote Cesar Conda, a former aide to Dick Cheney, to Kristol and to other conservatives.
Now that Paul is the GOP's nominee in Kentucky, what does Kristol think of him?
"Paul ran a good campaign," Kristol said. "He did a good job of being less like his dad -- seeming less 'out there' -- so if you were a normal Kentucky voter you thought you were voting for a Sarah Palin-like, anti-Washington figure, not someone who bought into the whole Ron Paul agenda."
Would Kristol welcome Rand Paul into the GOP fold?
"It's a big Senate," said Kristol, laughing. "It'll be a bigger Republican caucus next year. There'll be room for him. It's a very small price to pay for a very helpful and hopeful upsurge of tea party, anti-establishment feeling."
And is it better to have Ron Paul's supporters working inside the GOP, even if it means they can knock off candidates supported by Cheney, Conda, et al?
"Was it better for the Democrats to have the MoveOn people join them? Yes, obviously. People like me were disgusted by them, and they did some things that were disgusting, like the General Petraeus ad. At the end of the day, in American politics, you can't have a big, energetic grass-roots movement without having a lot of elements of it that you're not going to personally like or agree with. But to be fair to Rand Paul, there's a lot of distance between Rand Paul's agenda, which isn't exactly mine, and the caricature of nativism or isolationism."
=========Rand Paul on Iran Sanctions
Submitted by rudys_fire on Thu, 03/01/2012 - 18:23http://www.dailypaul.com/217658/rand-paul-on-iran-sanctions
March 1, 2012
About a month ago, I decided to email Dr. Rand Paul and asked why he voted for Iran Sanctions. He finally replied back to me. On the premise of sanctions not affecting the people of Iran, I accept his response although I can't say I'd do the same thing. What do you think?
Here it is below.
Dear Mr. Peterson,
Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding sanctions on Iran. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue.
In November 2011, the Senate began debate on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 (S. 1867). NDAA provides the authorization for spending by the Department of Defense (DoD) for procurement, base management and military operations.
While debating S. 1867, Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) introduced an amendment to place sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran (S.Amdt.1414). S.Amdt.1414 passed unanimously by the Senate and included in S. 1867. Following the passage of S. 1867, the language contained in S.Amdt.1414 was included in the conference committee version of NDAA (H.R. 1540). Despite my opposition, H.R. 1540 passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate by votes of 283-136 and 86-13 respectively. H.R. 1540 has been signed into law by President Obama.
The Iranian regime is engaged in the pursuit of nuclear weapons and supports terrorism across the globe. I supported S.Amdt.1414 because the sanctions are targeted to the regime's financing of those activities through the central bank and unlike other sanctions, not against the Iranian people.
Rest assured as debate continues in the Senate regarding Iran, I will keep your thoughts in mind. Feel free to contact me again regarding any federal issue in the future.
So Rand Paul wants sanctions against the "central bank" of Iran; not the Iranian people.
Is he so naive to think sanctions against the central bank won't be the same thing? He's either kidding himself, or he's disingenuous. Either way, he supported the NDAA, and he supported sanctions against Iran.
His views on that are consistent with Romney's.
No wonder Bill Kristol would welcome him.And yet, Ron Paul is not Rand Paul.
Then why not 'take off the gloves'?
When the "Ron Paul could be Romney's VP" rumor was floated, the argument in support of his reluctance to slam Romney was that he needed to focus his efforts to defeat Gingrich & Santorum. Well, he did.
Now why not take off the gloves?