Don’t do it.
I am serious, don’t do it.
I have nothing against Rand Paul, other than his wacko Dad named him after a utilitarian dipstick, but this news scares me.
Mitt Romney had a lengthy sit down with Rand Paul, son of Professor Boing Boing.
Now Rand Paul seems like a sorta sane individual and no son should have to denounce his wacky father (other than Charlie Sheen, Colin Hanks, any of the offspring of Alec Baldwin.)
Note to Mitt. Ron Paul supporters are not conservatives. They are not the droids you are looking for.
Sources close to Senator Rand Paul tell National Review Online that Paul and Mitt Romney had a private meeting on Wednesday. Details of the topics discussed are hazy, but Paul — the son of Texas congressman (and presidential candidate) Ron Paul — reportedly found the meeting productive.
Ron Paul people are not the tea party and they are not the people you should be courting. I have nothing against Rand Paul, other than his experience and parentage make him the worst possible VP candidate imaginable.
Don’t do it!!!
May 25, 2012 at 7:43 pm
And that's why slavery is a state issue.
May 25, 2012 at 8:20 pm
"Note to Mitt. Ron Paul supporters are not conservatives. They are not the droids you are looking for."
Pat, you mean that they are not the LEMMINGS you are looking for, which is exactly what you and most others who will vote for Romney are. We have people like you to thank for the never-ending stream of neocon, loser, establishment candidates the Republican establishment continues to force-feed us. They know that they can always count on you and the majority of other Repub voters to sell out and vote for the worthless candidate they put up, with garbage arguments that "voting for a third-party is akin to voting for the Democrat," "voting against the Democrat trumps everything else," etc. Not to mention that you delude yourself into believing that people like Paul "aren't real conservatives" while moderate and somewhat liberal Republicans somehow are. This country is going down, in no small part due to what the Republican party now is and what many Republican voters now think and support. Thank you, Pat.
Oh yeah, whatever happened to your post a few months back about how Romney supposedly still needed to "win you?" Oh that's right, winning the nomination was all it took for him to overcome that supposed hurdle, which everyone should've known was all it would've taken.
May 25, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Foxfiier arrives at a fundamental point. Like it or not, th us was refounded by lincoln. The states have thus ceased to be states, and so our foreign policy involvements into other countries is an extension of that war between the states. Fundamentally conservatives must ask…. Is it better to follow the law, and risk awful things like slavery and torture, or is it better to intervene and risk totalitarianism?
My two cents… You follow the law, and risk local government hooliganism, rather than efficient statist hooliganism. Id rather run from the count sherriff than the army drones deployed around the world.
Chris
May 25, 2012 at 8:56 pm
The Ron Paul die hards do get obnoxious, but it is equally obnoxious to say that anyone who supports Paul is not a conservative. Unless conservative and republican are synonymous, then I agree.
And Romney does need to woo the libertarian leaning republicans. He knows that the "conservative" republicans will hold their noses and vote for him, regardless of how much they dislike him. (And there's nothing wrong with that.) Most of them view anything else as akin to supporting Obama. The libertarians will be more than happy to vote third party, supporting a candidate they actually somewhat like, (nothing wrong with that either) unless Romney convinces them otherwise. McCain focused solely on winning the conservative tea party base. We saw what happened.
May 25, 2012 at 10:38 pm
I live near Rand Paul's district. He is very conservative but is NOT like Ron Paul. However, I think too many people would think he was like Ron Paul for him to be a good VP candidate. Maybe Romney was talking to him about a cabinet position.
May 26, 2012 at 12:20 am
Can I get an rss that is just Matt's articles please?
May 26, 2012 at 12:28 am
"Foreign Policy" calls it: Barack O'Romney
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/23/barack_oromney?page=full
May 26, 2012 at 12:29 am
Mitt is too smart to pick Rand Paul.
May 26, 2012 at 1:11 am
Mitt Romney would be lucky if either of those fellows would have him.
P.S. They won't.
May 26, 2012 at 1:32 am
Of course, the Constitution of the United States recognises that fundamental human right, that is, the right to life! Many fundamental human rights that it recognises are not ennumerated in its text but their recognition is clearly implied. As for Roe v Wade and other related rulings that assert that the killing of persons prior to birth is in conformity with the Constitution – they are clearly erroneous and we await the day that those rulings are struck down for radically misinterpreting the Constitution.
May 28, 2012 at 9:46 am
The right to life you are referring to is in the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution. Although I think it should be.
May 26, 2012 at 2:56 am
s it better to follow the law, and risk awful things like slavery and torture, or is it better to intervene and risk totalitarianism?
Really? The choice is totalitarianism or an extreme form of federalism where states are free to enact laws that deprive others of their own rights to pursue life, liberty, and property? I think we can have a federal republic that enables states to largely rule themselves while still placing certain things out of bounds.
May 26, 2012 at 5:20 am
Ron Paul is a RINO. The Republican party has been defined by two things—low taxes and proactive foreign policy—since at least their retaking of the Senate in 1946 (of which Senate "class", one Joe McCarthy). Of the two, that second one has probably been more definitive; it's certainly older.
The Party of Lincoln is not, and never was, a party that fetishized states' rights to the exclusion of justice, nor was it ever a party averse to using the military other than in retaliation—the Confederacy did not attack the Union. Leave to one side that one may not be alive to retaliate; the martial arts concept "one hit, one kill" and the video game concept "Zerg rush" both are, all by themselves, sufficient to refute Ron Paul's defense policy.
Ron Paul is a Dixiecrat—he's a fiscally conservative Democrat. There's a reason he's been endorsed by David Duke.
May 28, 2012 at 10:01 am
The fact that you call him a fiscally conservative Democrat only shows your lack of knowledge of Ron Paul. Please back up your accusations with facts. Small gov't, low taxes, pro-life, adherence to the constitution, cutting social programs, personal responsibility are not the hallmarks of a modern day Democrat.
May 27, 2012 at 5:04 am
Foxfier, slavery was a state issue under the law until 1866. Each state had the right to decide whether it wanted slavery or not. I suppose since you are a former federal employee, you tend to see the Federal Government with rose-clored glasses. Take off the glasses dearie and see your former employer for what it is, a developing totalitarian dictatorship that want to do what's 'best' for us.
May 27, 2012 at 2:40 pm
*eyeroll* Because totalitarian dictatorships all start with respect for the human person, from conception to natural death.
Nope, not buying that the One True Pro-Lifer is the one who thinks basic humanity is negotiable. Oh, sorry, should have the "personally opposed" excuse writ into the Federal gov't.
There's no way that saying states get to decide what humans the bill of rights applies to could possibly backfire. Fifth amendment? Oh, no, it doesn't apply to that person….
The glasses I'm wearing aren't rose colored, they just look that way because you've got your own.
May 27, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Archbold,
You are an ignorant and pompous ass (I figure since name-calling is kind of your thing, maybe I'd speak your language for a bit). Good luck with life.
May 27, 2012 at 11:55 pm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/
Paging the 'Religious Freedom' Champion!
Posted by Christopher Manion on May 27, 2012 11:57 AM
This morning our pastor, a frequent pilgrim to the Holy Land, recounted how hard it is to be a Christian there these days. Where the population of the Holy Land was 37% Christian just fifteen years ago, today it has fallen to one percent, he said.
Unlike Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of Christians have been driven out (and tens of thousands more killed), thanks to George W. Bush's triumphant installation of Democracy there, the Christians in the Holy Land have been driven out primarily by their Jewish neighbors — with the support of their government. of course.
Who you gonna call? Why, the "religious freedom champion," of course — a.k.a. Elliott Abrams, whom those Christian-loving Republicans just appointed to a body called “the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.”
Who better to stand up to the Israeli persecutors of Christians than the man who ran American Middle Eastern policy from the White House while…er…well, while the Christian population of the Holy Land plummeted from 37% to almost imperceptible levels?
Moreover, Abrams is the author of an intriguing work called "Faith or Fear: How Jews Can Survive in a Christian America" — cataloging, no doubt, the danger of the disappearance of Jews from the U.S. Isn't he the perfect religious freedom advocate to deliver an ultimatum to Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu? "Let my people go!" might not work, but how about "Faith or Fear: How Christians Can Survive in a Jewish Israel"?
May 28, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amazing how powerful a "negative right" can be, eh?
May 29, 2012 at 1:09 am
Foxfier, the Bill of Rights originally was to keep your former employer, the federal government, out of the states business. So unless the individual states decided to put something in their constitution that echoed the BOR, none of the it was to be used to interfere with the business and wishes of the people of the states. The amendments that we've already discussed on a previsious post clearly violate the intent of the writers of the constitution.
May 29, 2012 at 2:23 am
Clearly the Founders intended the states to be able to ban the ownership of weapons for all men with green eyes, and legalize the hunting of blondes. It's only being a Navy vet on two different focuses of the GWOT that could possibly make me blind to their clear intent, there.
May 29, 2012 at 3:58 am
Foxy, slaves, unnatralized foreigners, freemen of color, and criminals were not allowed to own or use firearms under the laws of most antebellum states. I think to had something to do with the fear of foreign invasion, slave uprisings, and crime against the white majority population. As far as I know, no blondes were hnted nor were green eyeed man denied the right to bare arms unless they fell under the catagories I've just mentioned.