As I've said before, I like both Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, but I don't see the formal alliance between the two that seems to be an accepted fact these days. After last night's debate, Santorum even called them out on it. Or tried to anyway. Hmmm.. that was a really odd comment to make directly after the debate. I would never point out that two of my opponents, who have nothing really in common, have similar attack ads. That simply lends credence to the idea that the ads are correct. Especially when we are talking about Ron Paul who is famous for cutting through the spin and calling things like they are. I've made my case before about why Paul would not be too aggressive against Romney, but I think it is really a stretch to suggest that they are formally colluding against someone. I think the Santorum response makes him look really weak, the same way it made Gingrich look weak after his SC win. Contrast their responses with Romney, who simply says he is expecting the attacks and that he has broad shoulders. These attacks are nothing like what they will see in the general, and if they can't take the heat now, get out of the kitchen.
I read that during the 2008 campaign they became friends and their wives became close friends. It doesn't have to be an agreed to alliance that makes them seem to tag team Santorum. Paul knows he can't win the nomination. He is playing for enough delegates to have a voice in forming the platform at the convention. So, if you can avoid attacking your friend but can join in on attacking a common opponent it makes sense to do so. No collusion. Just common sense.
I got a good chuckle out of this response from Ron Paul yesterday.... <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Jjq3Asidp6s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I've heard that same thing about 2008. They do tend to gravitate toward each other after the debates are over. Personally even though that was a pretty uneventful debate, I think that Paul contributed to what was absolutely the highlight of the night and what will probably end up as the turning point for Santorum losing the nomination. Santorum is campaigning on the premise that he is the one who always stands for his convictions. Then out of nowhere he explains his support for "no child left behind" by saying that politics is a team sport, and sometimes you have to take one for the team. Paul then had the defining moment with his "go along to get along" attack. Santorum makes matters even worse by explaining that he supported funding for planned parenthood because it was a part of a much larger appropriation bill that he supported. Not sure how many people picked up on that, but I was left wondering why he would make such an awful statement. He is supposed to be the smaller government guy with conviction. What he basically said was that he voted against his convictions in order to pass a big federal spending bill. And that can all be excused because after voting for Title 10 he introduced Title 20 to offset it. So let's see, the "consistent true conservative" who campaigns on having the courage to always stand up for his convictions that include pro-life, small government, low tax, and less spending, just explained that sometimes he abandons what he believes in order to take one for the team, and other times he tosses his staunch pro-life stance in order to increase federal spending, but it is ok that he tossed his pro-life stance because he found a way to even further increase spending by offsetting his previous vote. And that he managed to explain all this in a 10 minute span is mind boggling.
I would say that both are the most pragmatic GOP candidates which makes them somewhat aligned. It would be a good thing if Romney appoints Paul to some meaningful post in his cabinet .