American hacks have been mystified by what seems to be a ‘non-aggression pact’ between Republican presidential candidates Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. The two men are in many ways opposites. Paul is the favourite of anti-establishment conservatives — principled, dismissed by the media as too radical, critical of the Grand Old Party machine and US foreign policy. Romney, on the other hand, is a typical American politician — rich, lacking clear convictions, happy to talk about bombing the enemies of freedom. And yet — as Jonathan noted a few weeks ago — Paul, though he has repeatedly attacked Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, has been strangely mute when it comes to Mitt.
Has a deal been struck? Time’s Alex Altman suggests the answer is yes:
‘Paul is understandably concerned about the future of his movement. Aides say if Paul can’t win the nomination, four legislative priorities would top the Texas Representative’s wish list: deep spending cuts that lead to a balanced budget; the restoration of civil liberties; a commitment to reclaim the legislative branch’s right to declare war, which it abdicated to the executive branch in recent decades; and reforms that shore up the U.S.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in