Sunday, March 25, 2012

What Will Ron Paul Squeeze from Romney and When?

Brent Budowsky writes:

Newt Gingrich will drop out by April 15. Ron Paul will drop out by May 1. Both will strongly support Mitt Romney. Gingrich has no choice. His campaign is dying. He is dependent on one man, Sheldon Adelson, who will soon drop his support. Ron Paul has a choice, but the choice he will make is to drop out and support Mitt, after squeezing everything he can from Romney in the deal. Truth is, Ron is a beautiful old-style politician, but he is losing primary support so fast he is losing leverage fast, which means the price Romney will pay Paul is going down. So Paul must cut the deal before the price reaches zero. 
Newt is just bye-bye ASAP, not worth the time. Paul has the option of running as a third party, and with his delegates so low this is his only leverage to pressure Mitt to pay a higher price. So Newt will drop out because he has to, Ron will sell out because the price is right, but this must happen sooner rather than later because (in the tradition of Ron's Austrian economists) Ron Paul's value to Mitt Romney is declining fast.
But Lew Rockwell, who is close to Ron Paul, writes:
 BB is off the deep end when he predicts that Ron willl drop out on May Day. Ron has made it clear that he is in through Tampa.
I think Lew has this one nailed. It's about Dr. Paul carrying the torch of liberty into the Republican convention. That said, Dr. Paul can't endorse Romney unless  he gets something big in return, not some words written into a the Republican Party platform that no one will ever read. It would have to be something that has real impact in advancing liberty. If there is not a trade for a meaningful advance towards liberty (whatever that trade might be), then there is no reason for Ron Paul to endorse the insider, warmonger, flip-flopper Romney. Squeeze a commitment for some kind of liberty out of Romney, Dr. Paul! Tangible liberty that we can all see and experience. It's the only reason to even talk to Romney about an endorsement.


  1. My vote would be for NO sellout. For moral reasons, sure. But also to set the stage for Rand's run in 2016.
    Look, it's gonna rain hard for the next 4 years. Might as well have that on Obama's watch.

  2. As a Paul supporter planning on staying home on election day if the doctor isn't on the ballot, there is only one consolation I can fathom which would make me consider a vote for Romney. Not a plank in the platform, not an audit of the fed, not a VP slot... only the Supreme Court Nomination of Judge Andrew Napolitano gets me out of the house on November 6th.

  3. ron will definitely be in for the long haul; these off-base delegate counts are ridiculous. The delegate strategy has gone far better than the campaign had anticipated. Just this weekend Ron upset Rick Santorum and is now poised to win the majority of delegates in Missouri now too. The campaign will likely win delegate majorities in Iowa, Maine, Nevada, Minnesota, Colorado, Washington and now Missouri. He has also racked up a significant number of delegates from strong second place finishes in New Hampshire and Virginia and there are still over 20 contests to go. If Romney cannot collect the 1,144 needed to get the nomination on the first ballot, he is in a lot of trouble if the convention is brokered. Unfortunately, we need Santorum to steal as many delegates from romney, too.

  4. Ron Paul strongly supporting Romney? Umm...NOOOOOOOOOOOO. That's never going to happen.

  5. I ask again:

    1) What makes you think that the most principled statesman in American history would align himself with Romney in this way?
    2) What makes you think that Romney and his handlers will want or need Ron Paul's delegates when Santorum and Gingrich will be infinitely more malleable?
    3) Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that Romney makes major concessions to Paul to get the delegates--what makes you think that such concessions would be any more enforceable than any other campaign promise? What is Ron Paul gonna do--sue him for breach of contract?

  6. First, I have yet to hear an example of any meaningful "commitment for some kind of liberty" that Romney could offer Dr. Paul. Everyone that has tried to give an example (e.g.; Jesse Benton) has given examples that only strengthen the case that there is nothing Romney could offer.

    Second, as I've been saying, the GOP isn't worried about it because they would never allow Paul to win. Claiming the GOP needs Paul supporters is to make two naive assumptions: (1) that the GOP wants to win the presidency and; (2) that election day results represent how voters actually cast their votes.

    So far, Walter Block has the best advice for Paul. Ron Paul's biggest impact is opening people's eyes and delegitimizing the system. Any compromise with Romney or the GOP would negate that impact.

  7. Don't expect any deal with the devil to be honored. Or, as they say, there is no honor among thieves.

  8. I have seen the concession from Romney/meaningful advance towards liberty point raised here and there, but it misses wildly.

    The only thing Paul could get, that would have meaning to his supporters and carry weight in so far as it could help Romney get elected, is assurances that Romney would fly to Iran, or summit somewhere, and get things worked out to avert war. (We all know averting war with Iran isn't to hard, but face has to be saved at this point, which would just take a bribe, and the trappings of a summit or a visit to Iran would be more for television/demos consumption.) All for show, but it would have meaning and keep the moral high ground for Paul and his supporters.

  9. Robert,

    This is such delicious theater, no?

    Brent doesn't have a clue.

    You were right about Ron when you wrote, " Dr. Paul can't endorse Romney" you went astray with everything after, "unless..."

    Paul knows that anything Romney might offer as a concession is a lie. There's not an honest bone in Romney's body. With the first "crisis" he'd find an excuse to go back on any promise.

    Look - back in the last presidential election cycle I listened to an interview that Romney gave with a radio talk show host. When the host brought up Ron Paul, Romney just spewed venom about Ron Paul.

    Just as Romney could only talk about "moon bases" being something that differentiated himself from Gingrich, there's no substantive difference between Romney and Obama. They're both taking us to the same place - just using different motivations to get us there.

    Ron Paul must remain Ron Paul. He should run 2nd party (Republicans and Democrats really are the same party). He will continue to draw people to him and proclaim the message. If it means Romney doesn't "win" because of the Ron Paul supporters... cool! More will hate us but it'll draw more to us.

    This is the beginning of the revolution.

  10. Ron. Paul. Will. Never. Endorse. Mitt. Romney.

    Never. Never. Never. Never. Never. Never.

    Not in exchange for VP for him or Rand (unlikely to be offered, anyway). Not for any reason. It will not happen.

    "Squeezing Liberty" out of Mitt? Maybe Ron could squeeze some kind of false, empty promise out of Mitt. But why bother? No Ron Paul supporter would believe it!

    If this question comes up on Intrade, I'll bet $1000 against it.

  11. If Paul pulls out before Tampa (and endorses Romney) he is sure to throw away much of the work he has put in in the liberty movement. Not to mention he risks flushing his reputation down the drain. Budowsky's forecast just doesn't seem to be in line with what we have come to expect of Dr. Paul or with the astute political shrewdness that he has exhibited. I find BB's prediction not very plausible.

  12. After reading the Jack & Suzy Welch column, and listening to the campaign reports, I think that Romney is going to end up going with Rand as VP...and Ron as Sec of State. 2 powerful positions, guaranteeing aromney the nomination and win in November.

    Just my 2 fiat dollars.


  13. I am strongly convinced that the party hacks are keeping Santorum and Gingrich in the race to keep it from being just Romney and Paul, because in that scenario, Romney loses badly. It is better for them to think there are actually three viable candidates left, and that Paul is assumed to be out of it.

    Also, Paul seems to be ahead in the Americans Elect nomination pre-process. Wouldn't that be a kicker.