Oh No! Son Of Boing Boing!

Don't do it.

I am serious, don't do it.

I have nothing against Rand Paul, other than his wacko Dad named him after a utilitarian dipstick, but this news scares me.

Mitt Romney had a lengthy sit down with Rand Paul, son of Professor Boing Boing.

Now Rand Paul seems like a sorta sane individual and no son should have to denounce his wacky father (other than Charlie Sheen, Colin Hanks, any of the offspring of Alec Baldwin.)

Note to Mitt. Ron Paul supporters are not conservatives. They are not the droids you are looking for.
Sources close to Senator Rand Paul tell National Review Online that Paul and Mitt Romney had a private meeting on Wednesday. Details of the topics discussed are hazy, but Paul — the son of Texas congressman (and presidential candidate) Ron Paul — reportedly found the meeting productive.

Ron Paul people are not the tea party and they are not the people you should be courting. I have nothing against Rand Paul, other than his experience and parentage make him the worst possible VP candidate imaginable.

Don't do it!!!

Comments

  1. First, his name is Randal. He isn't named after that lame author. In fact, he went by Randy as a kid.

    Second, he's much better than his father, but I think you already knew that. ;-)

    Lastly, I don't think this is about the veep spot. It may have more to do with the delegates his father is amassing, especially in caucus states. Paul supporters are quite involved and die hard. Romney, not so much. Paul supporters show up and get elected into delegate spots.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, this is the last time I ever visited this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Better than Ron Paul? Yeah, who wants honesty consistency, genuine love for his fellow man, willingness to work with people and trade with them instead of bombing them into oblivion (pro-life), no crony corporate backers, not bought off by unions, never took a junket, returns part of his congressional office budget every year, receives more donations from active military than any other politician, ....what's the use. You judge the fruit and pick Romney, Barrabas and insult Dr Paul. You are a RINO or are completely clueless about conservatism and limited government.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am a conservative, and I voted for Ron Paul in the last two Republican presidential primaries. I would happily vote for Rand Paul too, given the chance.

    Now, I do agree that Rand Paul may not be the best VP pick with voters in general, but *I* certainly would like the pick.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just so i understand.....boo abortion = totality of catholic moral teaching. So, right view on abortion + liberal ideas on fiscal policy + empiric foreign policy = conservative. While boo abortion, boo torture + conservative fiscal policy + non interference foreign policy + an actual conception of federalism = faux conservative. Now thats interesting accounting. So conservatism is hawkish on war with no solid conception of federalism, now with torture. Umm no thanks. Now who's the statist?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Every time you talk about Ron Paul, you prove you are just refusing to pay attention. He can't make the nice little sound bites you are accustomed to, but eventually, if you really are any sort of good Catholic, you ought to develop some humility- at least the epistemological kind- to figure out what he's talking about.
    The bishops are already fighting a losing battle, trying to extract from a government rights many of them happily assented for us all to lose when everything from FDRs new deal to Obamacare was framed as charity. Clearly there are lessons that need to be learned.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You're just trolling for hits, aren't you?

    Or do you really WANT to be dragged into explaining that kicking the humanity of the unborn down to state level isn't all that Catholic? (I use to be an RP fan on pro-life issues. Nothing like the supposed idealist supporting a solution that abandons the unborn and mimics the problem that nearly tore the nation apart once!)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh, third option:
    you refuse to be intimidated by the flood of Ronulans who spend their time searching for comments about their idol, so they can cut-and-paste simicoherent responses.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Pat,

    Knock it off with the name calling and the backhanded compliments.

    I actually agree with pretty much everything you said but, to me, you lose the argument when you start behaving the same way I see people behave who are against the Church's fight against the HHS mandate. Can't use logic? Start name calling. Have no information to back you up? Make fun of, or actively denounce, your opponents wacky beliefs.

    Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wait, someone's parentage makes them a bad candidate? How American.

    I generally like reading this bloc but I cannt stand your little obsession with hating on Ron Paul. The kind of people who don't support him are just big-government big-spending "conservatives," and aren't any better than big government liberals like Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You keep denegrating Ron Paul but I have yet to see any postings on your blog actually logically arguing against his beliefs of what our government should and shouldn't be doing. Have either of you ever seriously listened to what he has been saying and given it any thought or research? My guess is not. You are probably too busy trying to find ways to support Romney who holds fundraisers with pro-aborts and supports homosexuals who want to adopt.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @ August: "when everything from FDRs new deal to Obamacare was framed as charity" Charity is a virtue voluntarily practiced, the absolute domain of the Church. Non-voluntary charity is tryanny, extortion, imposition and establishemnt of religion against the Freedom in the First Amendment. Obamacare is the establishment of secular humanism as a religion and Obama as the high priest. God created and owns Caesar, unless you do not know how to read, God still created Caesar through the sovereign personhood of man, man who constitutes Caesar does not care to be overruled by his invention.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Pat,

    Who pissed in your Wheaties this morning?

    Completely gratuitious.

    C'mon, you can do better than this...

    JOB

    ReplyDelete
  14. "x said...
    Well, this is the last time I ever visited this blog."

    Ditto I'm afraid. You are now officially deleted from my rss reader. Patrick if you cannot comprehend how libertarian thought pertaining to social and economic ideas are perfectly compatible with Catholicism I recommend reading Tom Woods.

    ReplyDelete
  15. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNDsyKnQIes&feature=youtu.be

    I am not a troll, I am a long time reader. I really hope you will watch the above video, and I would be absolutely thrilled if you would offer your thoughts. Mitt Romney does NOT have a pro-life record. We want to say he had a "conversion" because he now claims agreement with our position. But the fact is, good ol' Mitt changed his mind on the abortion issue. What's to prevent him from flip flopping again?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Or do you really WANT to be dragged into explaining that kicking the humanity of the unborn down to state level isn't all that Catholic?

    NO question it is not Catholic. But it is arguably Constitutional, that little ol' document federal officials take an oath to uphold and defend. Just ask that super-libertarian Catholic on the SCOTUS, oh, what's his name, rhymes with Balia.

    Most alleged coservatives are nothing more than right liberals.

    ReplyDelete
  17. There's no shortage of contrarians on here, but I'll add my voice. My wife and I both voted for Ron Paul in the primary, though we'll vote for Romney in the general.

    Ron Paul was pulling 20% of the GOP electorate in a lot of places. It's time people stop denigrating people that are for the Constitution and against Wilsonian war-mongering as somehow not Conservatives. Or weirdos that live in their parents' basements. I attend a diocesan traditional Mass, and there were a lot of us in the basement coffee voting for Paul. Even a member of his finance team is a parishioner at a TLM.

    The rah-rah over the top jingoism that has attached itself to a large portion of the Conservative movement over the last 20 years is neither Conservative nor Catholic. America is not the messiah.

    ReplyDelete
  18. NO question it is not Catholic. But it is arguably Constitutional, that little ol' document federal officials take an oath to uphold and defend.

    Yeah, the constitution says nothing about it being illegal to deprive someone of life without due process....

    ReplyDelete
  19. Foxfier-- Other murders are not prohibited by the Constitution either. Other murder is handled by state law. Rape is also not handled by Federal law, unless it crosses borders or its victim is a federal employee. Being a state matter doesn't mean we think it is less important, it just means the constitution leaves it there because it is not given to the federal government in the Constitution. Child abuse, drug abuse, and all kinds of other crimes are left in the hands of the state as well. Should we pass a Constitutional amendment protecting the unborn? I think so, but there is 0% chance of that happening in our lifetimes.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The Constitution is about what government may do, not about what people may do to each other. That is handled by statute or state law.

    ReplyDelete
  21. And that's why slavery is a state issue.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Note to Mitt. Ron Paul supporters are not conservatives. They are not the droids you are looking for."

    Pat, you mean that they are not the LEMMINGS you are looking for, which is exactly what you and most others who will vote for Romney are. We have people like you to thank for the never-ending stream of neocon, loser, establishment candidates the Republican establishment continues to force-feed us. They know that they can always count on you and the majority of other Repub voters to sell out and vote for the worthless candidate they put up, with garbage arguments that "voting for a third-party is akin to voting for the Democrat," "voting against the Democrat trumps everything else," etc. Not to mention that you delude yourself into believing that people like Paul "aren't real conservatives" while moderate and somewhat liberal Republicans somehow are. This country is going down, in no small part due to what the Republican party now is and what many Republican voters now think and support. Thank you, Pat.

    Oh yeah, whatever happened to your post a few months back about how Romney supposedly still needed to "win you?" Oh that's right, winning the nomination was all it took for him to overcome that supposed hurdle, which everyone should've known was all it would've taken.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Foxfiier arrives at a fundamental point. Like it or not, th us was refounded by lincoln. The states have thus ceased to be states, and so our foreign policy involvements into other countries is an extension of that war between the states. Fundamentally conservatives must ask.... Is it better to follow the law, and risk awful things like slavery and torture, or is it better to intervene and risk totalitarianism?
    My two cents... You follow the law, and risk local government hooliganism, rather than efficient statist hooliganism. Id rather run from the count sherriff than the army drones deployed around the world.

    Chris

    ReplyDelete
  24. The Ron Paul die hards do get obnoxious, but it is equally obnoxious to say that anyone who supports Paul is not a conservative. Unless conservative and republican are synonymous, then I agree.

    And Romney does need to woo the libertarian leaning republicans. He knows that the "conservative" republicans will hold their noses and vote for him, regardless of how much they dislike him. (And there's nothing wrong with that.) Most of them view anything else as akin to supporting Obama. The libertarians will be more than happy to vote third party, supporting a candidate they actually somewhat like, (nothing wrong with that either) unless Romney convinces them otherwise. McCain focused solely on winning the conservative tea party base. We saw what happened.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I live near Rand Paul's district. He is very conservative but is NOT like Ron Paul. However, I think too many people would think he was like Ron Paul for him to be a good VP candidate. Maybe Romney was talking to him about a cabinet position.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Can I get an rss that is just Matt's articles please?

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Foreign Policy" calls it: Barack O'Romney
    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/23/barack_oromney?page=full

    ReplyDelete
  28. Mitt is too smart to pick Rand Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Mitt Romney would be lucky if either of those fellows would have him.

    P.S. They won't.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Of course, the Constitution of the United States recognises that fundamental human right, that is, the right to life! Many fundamental human rights that it recognises are not ennumerated in its text but their recognition is clearly implied. As for Roe v Wade and other related rulings that assert that the killing of persons prior to birth is in conformity with the Constitution - they are clearly erroneous and we await the day that those rulings are struck down for radically misinterpreting the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The right to life you are referring to is in the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution. Although I think it should be.

      Delete
  31. s it better to follow the law, and risk awful things like slavery and torture, or is it better to intervene and risk totalitarianism?

    Really? The choice is totalitarianism or an extreme form of federalism where states are free to enact laws that deprive others of their own rights to pursue life, liberty, and property? I think we can have a federal republic that enables states to largely rule themselves while still placing certain things out of bounds.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ron Paul is a RINO. The Republican party has been defined by two things—low taxes and proactive foreign policy—since at least their retaking of the Senate in 1946 (of which Senate "class", one Joe McCarthy). Of the two, that second one has probably been more definitive; it's certainly older.

    The Party of Lincoln is not, and never was, a party that fetishized states' rights to the exclusion of justice, nor was it ever a party averse to using the military other than in retaliation—the Confederacy did not attack the Union. Leave to one side that one may not be alive to retaliate; the martial arts concept "one hit, one kill" and the video game concept "Zerg rush" both are, all by themselves, sufficient to refute Ron Paul's defense policy.

    Ron Paul is a Dixiecrat—he's a fiscally conservative Democrat. There's a reason he's been endorsed by David Duke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact that you call him a fiscally conservative Democrat only shows your lack of knowledge of Ron Paul. Please back up your accusations with facts. Small gov't, low taxes, pro-life, adherence to the constitution, cutting social programs, personal responsibility are not the hallmarks of a modern day Democrat.

      Delete
  33. Foxfier, slavery was a state issue under the law until 1866. Each state had the right to decide whether it wanted slavery or not. I suppose since you are a former federal employee, you tend to see the Federal Government with rose-clored glasses. Take off the glasses dearie and see your former employer for what it is, a developing totalitarian dictatorship that want to do what's 'best' for us.

    ReplyDelete
  34. *eyeroll* Because totalitarian dictatorships all start with respect for the human person, from conception to natural death.

    Nope, not buying that the One True Pro-Lifer is the one who thinks basic humanity is negotiable. Oh, sorry, should have the "personally opposed" excuse writ into the Federal gov't.

    There's no way that saying states get to decide what humans the bill of rights applies to could possibly backfire. Fifth amendment? Oh, no, it doesn't apply to that person....

    The glasses I'm wearing aren't rose colored, they just look that way because you've got your own.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Archbold,

    You are an ignorant and pompous ass (I figure since name-calling is kind of your thing, maybe I'd speak your language for a bit). Good luck with life.

    ReplyDelete
  36. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/
    Paging the 'Religious Freedom' Champion!
    Posted by Christopher Manion on May 27, 2012 11:57 AM
    This morning our pastor, a frequent pilgrim to the Holy Land, recounted how hard it is to be a Christian there these days. Where the population of the Holy Land was 37% Christian just fifteen years ago, today it has fallen to one percent, he said.

    Unlike Iraq, where hundreds of thousands of Christians have been driven out (and tens of thousands more killed), thanks to George W. Bush's triumphant installation of Democracy there, the Christians in the Holy Land have been driven out primarily by their Jewish neighbors — with the support of their government. of course.

    Who you gonna call? Why, the "religious freedom champion," of course — a.k.a. Elliott Abrams, whom those Christian-loving Republicans just appointed to a body called “the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.”

    Who better to stand up to the Israeli persecutors of Christians than the man who ran American Middle Eastern policy from the White House while...er...well, while the Christian population of the Holy Land plummeted from 37% to almost imperceptible levels?

    Moreover, Abrams is the author of an intriguing work called "Faith or Fear: How Jews Can Survive in a Christian America" — cataloging, no doubt, the danger of the disappearance of Jews from the U.S. Isn't he the perfect religious freedom advocate to deliver an ultimatum to Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu? "Let my people go!" might not work, but how about "Faith or Fear: How Christians Can Survive in a Jewish Israel"?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Amazing how powerful a "negative right" can be, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Foxfier, the Bill of Rights originally was to keep your former employer, the federal government, out of the states business. So unless the individual states decided to put something in their constitution that echoed the BOR, none of the it was to be used to interfere with the business and wishes of the people of the states. The amendments that we've already discussed on a previsious post clearly violate the intent of the writers of the constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Clearly the Founders intended the states to be able to ban the ownership of weapons for all men with green eyes, and legalize the hunting of blondes. It's only being a Navy vet on two different focuses of the GWOT that could possibly make me blind to their clear intent, there.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Foxy, slaves, unnatralized foreigners, freemen of color, and criminals were not allowed to own or use firearms under the laws of most antebellum states. I think to had something to do with the fear of foreign invasion, slave uprisings, and crime against the white majority population. As far as I know, no blondes were hnted nor were green eyeed man denied the right to bare arms unless they fell under the catagories I've just mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  41. So it would violate the original intent, in your interpretation.

    Not clear what the time three to four decades prior to the civil war would have to do with original intent, other than being an attempt to change the subject.

    And it's F-O-X-F-I-E-R. I'm a married woman.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The mighty "warrior" in the "GWOT" thinks you were hitting on her, Dalton. She clearly sees all. LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  43. "Hitting on her?" That's a hoot! I was being sarcastic! And hey, if she doesn't want to be "hit on" she shouldn't se a pictre of a scant ily dressed fox critter!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment