STUDY: Ron Paul Never Attacked Romney Once During 20 Debates, But Attacked Romney’s Rivals 39 Times

[ProSense]

STUDY: Ron Paul Never Attacked Romney Once During 20 Debates, But Attacked Romney’s Rivals 39 Times

By Judd Legum

In recent days, attention has focused on the unusual relationship between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, who are purportedly competing against each other for the Republican presidential nomination. The New York Times reported recently that Romney has “worked to cultivate” a friendship with Paul. The candidates talk on the phone frequently. And when Paul’s “campaign jet broke down last year,” Romney “offered his jet to take them home to Texas.”

Rick Santorum has directly accused Paul and Romney of working together, noting “their commercials look a lot alike, and so do their attacks.” A review by ThinkProgress of the 20 GOP debates suggests Santorum might be onto something.

While Paul has freely attacked Romney’s top rivals, he has never once attacked Romney:



This is particularly striking given that Paul and Romney do not agree on virtually any policy positions.

Paul has gone beyond merely refraining from attacks. He has actively defended Romney on some of his biggest vulnerabilities. For example, when Rick Perry attacked Romney for “Romneycare” during an October 18 debate, Paul interjected:

First off, you know, the governor of Texas criticized the governor of Massachusetts for “Romneycare,” but he wrote a really fancy letter supporting “Hillarycare.” So we probably ought to ask him about that.

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/02/27/432664/ron-paul-never-attacked-romney/

One issue with this statement: "This is particularly striking given that Paul and Romney do not agree on virtually any policy positions."

Think Progress makes the classic mistake of separating Ron Paul from Republican positions:

Paul Defends Mitt For Gaffe, Time Spent At Bain
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002149315

Chart: Among GOP Candidates, Not a Single Friend of Social Security
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100289682

Republicans Versus Reproductive Rights
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002141047

"Ron Paul hates govt intervention, likes mandatory vaginal ultrasound probes"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002161152

[ProSense]

1. Kick! n/t

[UTUSN]

2. Frothy claimed deal for PAUL as Mittens' VP but LIMBOsevic said deal is for Rand n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Interesting. Paul likes to pretend he's "anti-establishment"...

...yet he's carried water for the one Republican candidate with the full backing of the Republican establishment.

[RockaFowler]

4. He's the most Establishment candidate out there

Look the guy has been in Congress for 30 years. Living off the government for 30 years. Either he just likes cushy jobs, or he's a liar and likes to be on the inside.

[Blue_Tires]

38. +1

[SidDithers]

5. Look to the potential relationship between Romney and Rand Paul...

and the picture becomes clearer.

A Kentucky tea-bagger Senator, son of Libertarian Ron Paul might be just what Northern, Mormon RMoney needs on the ticket to try to shore up the wingnut vote.

Sid

[NNN0LHI]

6. I first noticed this about a couple of months ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=128381

NNN0LHI Fri Jan 6, 2012, 11:33 AM

3. Anyone else notice that Ron Paul brought up Newt being a chickenhawk but not Romney?

He could have killed two chickenhawks with one stone but didn't.

Wonder why that was?

Don

[Enrique]

7. he sold all his followers out

they think he's a man of principle and he's selling them out to the guy with the most money.

[NNN0LHI]

9. Welcome to DU

I hope we become long lasting friends.

But I have my doubts.

Don

[coffee snob]

10. Aw...

Say it ain't so, Joe (Don)! Doggone it! ("Lipstick!&quot

[SidDithers]

15. Didn't even make it to 5 posts this time...

our MIR Team are some bad ass dudes and dudettes!



Sid

[Hugabear]

27. I wish DU3 would bring back the tombstone graphic

There was always something viscerally gratifying in seeing a troll get a tombstone.

[Iggo]

11. Welcome to DU.

[great white snark]

17. Why on earth would you welcome a troll?

Do you also exclaim "Welcome and thank you!" when you're visited by a case of explosive diarrhea?

[Iggo]

19. I think you may have misinterpreted...

...the waving smiley as waving hello.

[emulatorloo]

29. Lol

[flexnor]

12. so? they do that on every reality TV show

players gang up on each other and make secret alliiances

if you think that primary is anything more than a reality TV show, you're mistaken

[ProSense]

13. I get

so? they do that on every reality TV show

players gang up on each other and make secret alliiances

if you think that primary is anything more than a reality TV show, you're mistaken

...the feeling you have a thing for Paul (and it has nothing to do with what you see on TV) http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=352967

[flexnor]

14. really. i thought i just dismissed him as a peer of reality TV show contestents

about the biggest insult i can think of

and as far as that post goes, so i've taken paul's actions in the debates as usefull toward splitting the republicans party against warmongering, and building a bi-partison coalition against a war with iran that would:

1) Kill probably hundreds of thousands of innocent people, at least (with disproportionate share of poor and minorities as American soldier casualties)

2) Finish off the USA financially

3) Risk, in the very worst case, a needless WWIII

if you're accusing me of the above, then i'm guilty as charged

yes - I DO think his anti-war stance is usefull and valuable. The rest? I think he's a timothy learly like figure with a bunch of misfit kids high on his corporate liberatarian kool-aid, a favorite philosophy of a very large privately owned oil company

[ProSense]

16. So

about the biggest insult i can think of

and as far as that post goes, so i've taken paul's actions in the debates as usefull toward splitting the republicans party against warmongering, and building a bi-partison coalition against a war with iran that would:

1) Kill probably hundreds of thousands of innocent people, at least (with disproportionate share of poor and minorities as American soldier casualties)

2) Finish off the USA financially

3) Risk, in the very worst case, a needless WWIII

if you're accusing me of the above, then i'm guilty as charged

...by covering for Romney, Ron Paul is "splitting the republicans party"?

That's beyond silly!

[flexnor]

18. no

the only thing i said that applies to the 'covering for romney' issue is the 'acting like any other reality TV show contestent' snark

doesnt matter is he softens it up now with romney or not, those debates are all on tape, and paul made strident anti-war stands in debates in TWO elections - he cant walk all of that back no matter what he does

and if you look at this post of mine 'romney hust isnt closing the deal, even with his own party'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=356631

what i'm hinting at, is that Romney is killing their ticket this election, the romney pill just isnt going down with their base, and if paul is selling out his anti war position to team with romney, it still wont be enough to put romney over the top. if the republicans were smart, they'd trade in all their cards and start over, maybe puill back pawlenty (who i do NOT think is a good guy, but doesn thave this primary's baggage)

the realities of today's politics and issues are complex, and so are my opinions

you can harly consider this previous post to the above post as pro-romney

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=356560

[ProSense]

28. This

doesnt matter is he softens it up now with romney or not, those debates are all on tape, and paul made strident anti-war stands in debates in TWO elections - he cant walk all of that back no matter what he does

<...>

what i'm hinting at, is that Romney is killing their ticket this election, the romney pill just isnt going down with their base, and if paul is selling out his anti war position to team with romney

...has gone well beyond "if". He's clearly defending Romney. Paul is fraud. Republicans are hypocrites so they'll have no problem with that.

Ron Paul will have no problem being a hypocrite.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002155700

[Rex]

20. LOL that pic of Rick!!!!

Hohohohoho!!!!

[Skidmore]

21. Paul will seek to preserve the system because it will give his son

something to rail against as fuel for future runs.

[Thrill]

22. Mittens must have promised to put Rand

On the ticket.

[ecstatic]

23. F* that bigotarian

What a fake! I guess he's trying to work out a deal for his idiot son. No thanks!

[Dawson Leery]

24. Another opportunist.

By giving such deference to the most establishment candidate, Ron Paul is showing himself to be a fraud.

[nanabugg]

25. RP may not agree with Romney on much but RP know the rest of bunch are nuts!! nt

[LanternWaste]

26. Easiest targets are the most obvious targets...

Easiest targets are the most obvious targets.

Why waste rubber bands shooting at the moderate target when the barn door is twenty feet closer, twenty time larger, and twenty times more obnoxious...?


Unless of course this is merely very, very clever implication of a super-secret and super-sinister, nefarious cabal being cooked up by The Controllers (whoever they are...)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

30. Thank you so much for this! K&R!!!!!

[JNathanK]

31. I think political action is just an illusion to keep us passive.

I hear Paul supporters saying how doomed we are as a country if Paul doesn't get in. However, electing officials and waiting for a politician to do something isn't what gets things done. Big changes have mainly come through direct action and people letting the establishment know where the line is and not to cross it.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Remember when the georgia CNN debate was canceled because RP and Romney backed out?

I'm not sure it's all as cut and dried as some think, but something seems to be going on here.

RP supporters seem to cling to the idea that RP thinks Romoney will be the last man standing, and he prefers that because he can draw the greatest contrast between himself and Romney, but I'm not so sure. Seems like the chickenhawk gingrich might be better for that.

[RZM]

33. Alliances and deals like this are central to politics

It makes perfect sense. Paul knows he can't win, so he hitches his star to the wagon of the most likely winner early on. In exchange for that support, Romney promises Paul this or that if he gets the nomination and wins in November. It's an old story.

[ProSense]

36. Yeah,

It makes perfect sense. Paul knows he can't win, so he hitches his star to the wagon of the most likely winner early on. In exchange for that support, Romney promises Paul this or that if he gets the nomination and wins in November. It's an old story.

...except there is a myth perpetuated that Paul is somehow anti-GOP establishment. Some have even gone so far as to claim that he's the GOP establishment's worse nightmare.

Fact is, Paul is a typical Republican hypocrite, an opportunist and a racist.

[RZM]

42. I'm not here to debate libertarianism's place in conservative politics

Suffice to say that Paul is not in tune with many of his colleagues on some major issues.

He has (apparently) decided the best way to leverage his support into real influence is to work with Romney behind the scenes. That makes sense from his POV. Best to have Mittens spend his millions attacking others. It's also true that Romney and Paul are the two candidates least likely to attract 'swing' Republican supporters. They both have their bases of support and can't grow much beyond that, at least with other alternatives out there. So they are natural allies in that sense as well.

[Fearless]

34. I dunno...

I didn't watch ALL the debates, but I'm pretty sure he's "attacked" Romney at some point. I guess we must have different definitions of "attack".

[ProSense]

35. Well,

"I didn't watch ALL the debates, but I'm pretty sure he's 'attacked' Romney at some point. I guess we must have different definitions of 'attack'."

...I'm sure that if such an instance exists, someone will cite it. There are at least two examples of Paul defending Romney in the OP.

Why would you assume that a different definition of "attack" was used to point out that Paul didn't attack Romney?

[Fearless]

39. I'm not much for conspiracy theories.

He is attacking him... maybe, the debates don't show it well, but he is nonetheless...

Example: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/03/last-day-ron-paul-ad-is-his-sharpest-anti-romney-attack-yet/

[ProSense]

40. That's

fine, but that is an ad from was also two months ago. In fact, it was a week before the defense on Bain.

The OP is dealing with the debates, and Paul has definitely been mounting defense of Romney.

[Fearless]

41. The debates did not being two months ago.

During the time period in question Ron Paul has attacked Mitt Romney. As I said, perhaps not on the debates, although I doubt it. He did nonetheless.

The bigger question is why does it matter? They're all batshit anyways.

[ProSense]

43. That's

The debates did not being two months ago.

During the time period in question Ron Paul has attacked Mitt Romney. As I said, perhaps not on the debates, although I doubt it. He did nonetheless.

The bigger question is why does it matter? They're all batshit anyways.

...not the point. The point is the appearance of collusion. Also, this completely shatters the myth perpetuated that Paul is somehow anti-GOP establishment. As I said above, some have even gone so far as to claim that Paul is the GOP establishment's worse nightmare.

Fact is, Paul is a typical Republican hypocrite, an opportunist and a racist. So you're right, "They're all batshit..."

My question is: Why it important to give Paul the benefit of the doubt?

Is there any reason why Think Progress or anyone shouldn't be calling out Republicans?

[Fearless]

49. It is the point...

If he airs attack ads against Romney during the period that he "isn't attacking him" clearly, there is no great conspiracy.

This is about getting our facts straight. Even Think Progress needs to be corrected if they are wrong.

[Johonny]

37. If you think the election is between other and Romney

then attacking the others to show you are the best other is the smart thing to do. It could be Paul's people have calculated that Romney is not appealing and the goal this election season was to be the most qualified non-Romney person. Let the others absorb Romney's money bash and be the last alternative standing come convention time. That's basically been their strategy if you hear the people running his campaign speak.

[girl gone mad]

44. Took me 10 seconds on youtube to find these.

[ProSense]

45. Do you

realize the first one is from 2007?

Also, the rest are from last November. You can follow the point here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=360539

[ProSense]

46. Another thing

those must have been posted by Ronulans because they're hardly attacks, they're simply rebuttals. That last one isn't even a rebuttal. It's pretty lame and silly, especially with the big "PWND" attached.

[pnwmom]

47. Ron Paul's helping Romney, and Nader's helping Ron Paul.

Therefore, Nader's helping Romney.

Nothing much as changed since 2000.