fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Have Paul and Romney Formed an Alliance? (II)

Molly Ball summons up all the phony outrage she can muster: But Paul has a simple explanation for his behavior, and it should appall his ideological followers just as much as a craven political quid pro quo would: The two men are friends. Unlike the rest of the candidates, by Paul’s account, Romney hasn’t treated […]

Molly Ball summons up all the phony outrage she can muster:

But Paul has a simple explanation for his behavior, and it should appall his ideological followers just as much as a craven political quid pro quo would: The two men are friends. Unlike the rest of the candidates, by Paul’s account, Romney hasn’t treated Paul like a radioactive nutball; he’s greeted him with respect, as equals, and their families have become close. “I talk to Romney more than the rest on a friendly basis,” Paul told the New York Times. “He’s made a bigger attempt to do it. The others are sort of just real flat.”

What Paul, who has spent his decades in the House as a political outcast, is essentially saying is this: After all his humiliating years in the political wilderness, someone important has finally been nice to him. Alone among the establishmentarians, Romney has allowed Paul into the sacred clubhouse of legitimacy. For that, Paul is apparently willing to swallow their disagreements and play lapdog. He’s been co-opted — revealed to be less than the loyal libertarian soldier his fans take him for.

In other words, Ball seems to be saying that Paul can’t have any credibility as a dissenter on policy unless he acts like a deranged berserker trying to take down every other candidate. Ball clearly has a different understanding of what a lapdog does than the rest of us. The evidence she presents is not very strong. This is probably her weakest example:

Another less acknowledged, but possibly more significant, boost to Romney was Paul’s decision not to participate in this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference.

This is very silly. As he said at the time, Paul was foregoing the CPAC straw poll to concentrate his efforts in Maine’s caucuses, where his main competitor was…Romney. He very nearly deprived Romney of a useful victory in Maine. He almost succeeded, and it would have been Paul’s first win of the year had it gone the other way. Paul gave up on CPAC so that he could try to derail Romney in Maine. As it turned out, Romney prevailed in the caucuses, too, which was clearly the outcome that the Paul campaign didn’t want. The “possibly more significant” boost she refers to here was the result of Paul doing his best to humiliate Romney in his own backyard. It proves the exact opposite of what Ball thinks it does.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here