It seems that the evidence is mounting that Ron Paul, admired for his forthrightness and unwavering message may have been less than honest with followers specifically and the public in general.
First, a note for those of you not familiar with the term "stalking horse". In frontier times, a stalking horse was a kind of camouflage. A herd of deer or bison might be spooked by a two legged figure coming towards it, but a hunter walking alongside a horse was perceived as just another herd beast, until the hunter was close enough to shoot his prey. The stalking horse gave the hunter cover by disguising his motives.
It seems that Ron Paul may have been Romney's stalking horse among conservatives in the debates...
An analysis of 20 debates by ThinkProgress* shows that Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul did not attack rival Mitt Romney once during those televised face-offs.
That’s in comparison to Paul attacking Romney’s rivals — like former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — a total of 39 times during those debates, the report said.
ThinkProgress reported that Paul attacked Santorum 22 times and Gingrich 8 times in the debates. He attacked Texas Gov. Rick Perry and businessman Herman Cain four times each and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann one time while they were in the race.
Romney is the most liberal Republican running this year. He's one of the guys that Ron Paul's supporters like to call "McSame", after the failed bid of John McCain. Funny how Dr. Paul attacked all the other candidates as "not being conservative enough" while taking a "kid glove" approach to the most moderate to liberal candidate in the race. And now the stories are out there about how Rand Paul might be in the running for Romney's Veep? What is it they say about once being an accident, twice being coincidence, but three times is enemy action?
If there was a back room deal, does Paul really believe that his followers would accept his endorsement of Romney after having been misled for the past year? Many I've spoken to plan on sitting out the election if Paul is not the candidate. Would they accept Rand as Veep as a sop to their consciences? Or just see it as a sell out?
Speaking as a father, I know that there are lots of things I would give up in order for my children to succeed. But, I don't think my integrity is one of them.
*Yes. ThinkProgress comes with their own ideological bias. But if you can demonstrate where they've gotten their facts wrong here, I'm more than willing to listen.
H/T Daily Caller
Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.
Posts
Most of Ron Paul disciples are incapable of processing this kind of information (Tim over at LCR is a refreshing exception to the rule), but I do think more conservatives need to understand how Ron Paul is sabotaging the conservative movement (AGAIN).
ReplyDeleteIf it turns out there is an unholy alliance between Paul and Romney, I suspect the feelings of betrayal in Paul's followers will surpass any imagined benefit he or Rand would accrue.
DeleteI am in full agreement with RightKlik's statment. Ron Paul is a political opportunist and I would say of the worst kind, since he seems to try and portray himself as the only candidate who believes in the Constitution, while assisting in dirty tactics on the side. I trust him the least out of all the presidential andidates.
ReplyDeleteWell, he's not running for re-election to Congress and he has no chance of winning the White House, so I suspect we'll see less and less of Dr. Paul...
Delete