Santorum drops out.

[MMMark]

Sat. 12/04/14 00:35 EDT
.post #148

[url=Santorum drops out. - #60 by John_James]

@John James

[/url]No, you typed (abridged): “a Romney/Rand Paul ticket, with a cabinet appointment to Ron, would be far less attractive to Ron Paul supporters than Ron as the GOP presidential nominee.”

Well no kidding. People who are supporting Ron Paul for President would actually prefer him being the GOP nominee for President over him being appointed to a Cabinet and Mitt Romney being the nominee for President. I think we can place that safely in the “no shit” category.

Good. So therefore, they might be less likely to vote for such a ticket. Therefore, it’s not at all clear that Romney/Rand Paul would beat Obama/Biden, which is what I originally said. If Romney/Paul wouldn’t beat Obama, the alliance helps neither Romney nor Paul.

What this alliance does (potentially) do is effectively remove any further threat Paul and his supporters pose to a Romney nomination. Then, a significantly large percentage of Paul’s supporters will either not vote, or vote Libertarian.

I’d favor Romney losing to Obama without the support of Ron Paul over Romney losing to Obama with the support of Ron Paul. It’s the Republican Party that needs Ron Paul, not vice versa, and a Romney loss without Paul’s support would, finally, make that obvious.

So, unlike Ron Holland, neither Romney’s pledges nor his “… naming Rand Paul as his VP running mate and a promise of a Ron Paul cabinet appointment …” would get my “attention.” What such a scenario would get is my reiteration of Sidney Schanberg’s judicious admonition.

[url=Santorum drops out. - #59 by MMMark]

@MMMark

[/url]I think neocon Levin is perfectly happy with neocon Obama

[url=Santorum drops out. - #60 by John_James]

@John James

[/url]I think that’s a gross mischaracterization of Obama.

Please elaborate.

[url=Santorum drops out. - #42 by MMMark]

@MMMark

[/url]Perhaps “the plan” is another four years of Obama, which is why Romney is the “chosen one”: He’d lose. It also explains why the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul so much: He’d win.

[url=Santorum drops out. - #43 by John_James]

@John James

[/url]That makes absolutely no sense. No one hates Ron Paul because “he’d win”.

[url=Santorum drops out. - #46 by MMMark]

@MMMark

[/url]Do you mean you don’t think Paul would beat Obama, or do you mean that there is “no one” who would hate to see that happen?

[url=Santorum drops out. - #48 by John_James]

@John James

[/url]I mean the idea of Paul winning is not the reason people hate him. I know millions of Americans who would elated regardless of who won, so long as he has an “R” by his name.

[url=Santorum drops out. - #50 by MMMark]

@MMMark

[/url]I don’t argue with what you just said, but recall, I didn’t say “people” or “millions of Americans” hate Ron Paul. I said “It also explains why the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB hate Ron Paul so much: He’d win.” So, certain people hate Ron Paul, i.e., the people to whom Ron Paul, and especially a Ron Paul win, is “dangerous.”

[url=Santorum drops out. - #56 by John_James]

@John James

[/url]First of all, if you don’t think "the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB " = “people” or “millions of Americans”, I’m not sure what to say.

First of all, since I don’t think, didn’t say, and didn’t even imply that, you need not say anything.

@John James

Second, my argument is not who hates Ron Paul, …

Second, neither is mine.

@John James

… but why they hate him.

And third, so is mine: They hate him because he’d win (keeping in mind that “they” means “the GOP, the media, and the unseen PTB”).

And fourth, where in this thread is your “argument … why they hate (Ron Paul)”?

[url=Santorum drops out. - #56 by John_James]

@John James

[/url]My entire point was the simple fact that Ron Paul could win is not why they hate him. Your statement suggested it was. That is all.

Well if “that is all,” then instead of

• saying my statement “makes absolutely no sense,” then
• telling me you’re “not sure what to say” about something I never said, then
• telling me what your argument is not, then
• telling me what your “argument is” (but not where it is), then
• telling me what your “entire point was” versus what “(my) statement suggested,”

you should have just said “I disagree,” then explained why.

You still can, and I’d be interested in reading what you have to say. You could follow that up by explaining how or why your argument renders my original statement worthy of the dismissal “That makes absolutely no sense. No one hates Ron Paul because ‘he’d win’.”

[url=Santorum drops out. - #59 by MMMark]

@MMMark

[/url]Well, this is going to happen anyway. Come August 27, 2012 (and probably well before), Paul will be pressured to “endorse Romney.” If he refuses outright, or even if he’s anything less than fully conciliatory, he’ll be branded “a traitor to his party”

[url=Santorum drops out. - #60 by John_James]

@John James

[/url]“The truth of that assumption is not obvious to me.” Gary North doesn’t seem to think so.

Thanks! Here is the relevant passage:

Ron Paul sat out the 2008 debacle. He did not get blamed. If Romney loses without his endorsement, he will not be blamed.

Well, we’ll see. Ron Paul is a far greater threat this time around, although that hasn’t been “officially” acknowledged. A brokered convention will force that acknowledgement. If Ron refuses to endorse, he’ll be vilified. That’s my prediction.