RedStateEclectic

The Ron Paul-Mitt Romney Alliance: It's Romney's ideology, or lack thereof

TRMII asks: This is not some kind of 'gotcha'--but what do you make of Naked Capitalism's Paul-Romney alliance expose?

It is out-of-character for Ron Paul to do anything remotely resembling political maneuvering. However, one thing he has done in the past is create coalitions even with groups who are diametrically opposed to his brand of small government libertarian-conservatism.

For example, Paul has closely worked with fellow legislator Dennis Kucinich on numerous occasions. And in the 2008 presidential elections, supported the candidacies of Cynthia McKinney, Chuck Baldwin, and Ralph Nader.

What is going on between Mitt Romney and Paul? It could possibly be the fact that unlike the other jokers currently running for the Republican nomination, Romney has—as Paul puts it—been “diplomatic.” The Romney campaign has been respectful towards Paul’s people and supporters. Romney would be a fool to think he can capture Paul’s followers, but he does not go out of his way to alienate them. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and others have rejected the new blood and fervor the Ron Paul Revolution is injecting into dying Republican Party—a mistake which will cause them dearly in the unlikely chance that either secures the nomination.

However, I find it more likely that the reason Paul and Romney seem to get along—ignoring, of course, their relationship with each other and their wives’ friendship with each other—boils down simply to ideology. Or rather, Romney’s seemingly lack thereof. Gingrich and Santorum are unashamedly right-wing progressives (also known as neoconservatives), whereas Romney has been the very essence of a flip-flopping compromising politician: the moderate.

Gingrich and Santorum have never known a bill that expands the State that they did not like. In the case of Santorum, even his rabid anti-abortion rhetoric did not stop him from funding Planned Parenthood. As long as it expands the State, as long as it further encroaches into our private lives, Santorum was there demanding more expansion of the government. Gingrich was merely corrupt; a political hog who enriched himself on the government trough.

Romney—as grossly out-of-touch as he is—is neither corrupt nor a hypocrite. And he is definitely not a neoconservative. If anything, it is precisely his seemingly lack of any ideology and willingness to listen to “what is popular” makes him a more likely ally to Paul. It is worth noting that he was a governor of a liberal state. If Paul is right and that “freedom is popular,” it would make sense for Romney to support causes and legislation that are both freedom-maximizing and popular. Or freedom-reducing and popular, but you get the idea.

This is a contrast to a possible Gingrich and Santorum presidencies. Both are ideologues. They would push for laws that are deeply unpopular because they give not a whit to the American electorate. Which is why Paul probably despises them. In the scheme of things, who would you oppose more? The guy who would say anything popular to get elected and while in office compromise on his principles because an issue happens to be popular? Or the guy who consistently supported aggressive expansion of the State in every aspect of our lives despite it being unpopular and would say the most incendiary things to get elected? The former has been Romney, while the latter describes Newt “Food Stamp President/Invented People” Gingrich and Rick “I Hate Muslims and Gays” Santorum. Paul has more of a chance of affecting the future of the Republican Party through Romney; Gingrich and Santorum represent the death throes of right-wing progressivism (aka neoconservatism).

Shorter: Paul gets along with Romney because he is not a neoconservative. In fact, Romney is not really anything, but a politician who would support anything popular to get elected.

The Slime

Four more years of Obama in the Oval Office would be better, in my view, than four years of Gingrich there: each man is mad for power; each man’s Promethean opinion of himself is quite the opposite of what a realistic self-opinion would be; each man is a font of economic idiocy; and each man’s principles are such that each would – recalling Mencken’s description of FDR – fatten up a crew of missionaries on the White House lawn for slaughter if he thought that endorsing cannibalism would get him more votes.  Yet the countless nutty and destructive policies that Pres. Gingrich would likely implement would inevitably be described by our crack mainstream press as “laissez faire” – thus creating more public misunderstanding.  (Of course, four more years of Obama in the White House might also be better than four years of Romney there….)

The source.

I tend to think that the stereotypical augury about the lesser evil has hardly more substance to it than the fact that it does help to keep the system going. What is left out of the picture is that there is more than one way for politicians to produce intolerable levels of damage. Both Obama and Gingrich are sure to maintain those levels.

Take a rest from the slime and the slimeballs, Rep. and Dem. Enjoy a nice piece of kinetically supported music:

 

PS

Actually, as a child I did see, smell, and touch this kind of sea foam on our visits to South African sea resorts. It looked just like this:

Image credit.

What About This? Rand Paul On The Romney Ticket

All week long, I've been quietly noticing a change in tone across the media waves and blogosphere. Suddenly, the bloggers aren't all calling Ron Paul nuts. The media is telling us that he is important in the race. Sarah Palin even mentioned that the party needs to embrace his support and listen to what he is saying, and she didn't get ostracized for it. 

Also, the debates have been a little odd.  Romney is the only candidate that Ron hasn't gone after.  Ron was also the first to defend Romney against the Gingrich/Perry attacks on capitalism.

So, during a blog-n-brunch this morning, DH and I happened to read  Smitty's piece, and an idea formed - one that made my eggs flip one more time.   What if Rand Paul is on Romney's short list of vice presidential picks?

As always, here's the thing: Who can bring more voters? 

Rand Paul is a staunch pro-life Christian conservative, with one amazingly beautful wife and several adorable kids. He can bring in Social Conservatives who might otherwise shy away from Romney's Mormon faith.

Of course, he's also the heir apparent to almost the entire libertarian wing of the GOP, which happens to be the only wing that's actually growing at the moment. (It also raises a whole lot of money.) And while part of that growth is in the youth who don't tend to vote as often as we would like, another sector they're capturing is the independents, and those are  the votes that the GOP desperately (and I do mean desperately) needs to capture if they stand any chance at all in ousting Obama. 

But here's the kicker: Rand Paul is also a legitimate TEA Party conservative. And not the pathetic GOP inflitrated, Gingrich supporting Judson "I want to make a million" Phillips type of TEA Partier, either. Nope, Rand brings the people who actually are sick to death of the spending and actually do want less government, not just more control of big government. 

So I ask again - who can bring more voters? Who else can bring the unification ticket to fruition?

I hear the names Nikki Haley and Marco Rubio bounced around, and while it's true they could bring some female / Hispanic voters in, as well as the TEA Party, are there enough of them to swing the election?  

Of course, there's a down side. It's entirely possible that such a move, if it were to happen, could actually be the GOP's way of getting pesky Rand Paul out of the Senate, opening the door for a more "agreeable" Senator to fill the chair. 

But we know that Ron Paul is a historian, and as such we can assume he knows that the Vice President is also the President of the Senate.  If memory serves me, up until Spiro Agnew left the Vice President had an office in the Senate and spent a good deal of his time actually driving the legislation that the executive branch was pushing for.  Sarah Palin even mentioned that she wanted to return to that model if she was elected to that office.  Is it possible that Romney would let Paul assume that role, which would be especially fulfilling if the GOP regains the Senate majority?

Practically speaking though, while I find it more than just a little amusing that they might be forced into it, would the same GOP that fought hard to keep Rand Paul out of the senate would, in less than two years, suddenly hand him the second highest position of power in the land?  It seems like an awfully risky move for a party that's not known for adapting well to change. 

There's certainly more than a few Ron Paul suporters who would never vote for Romney, period. But to be perfectly honest, I'm suddenly not sure that I'm among them.  After all, the Bush/Rockefeller wing of the party was swept in on Reagan's coattails. Would it really be so wrong for us to return the favor? 

 

Ron Paul's Strategy

What is Ron Paul up to?

This is a question a lot of the fans of the Republican Congressman from Texas have been asking themselves for the last few weeks. The overall strategy of the Ron Paul for President campaign has been difficult to discern in many ways.

For instance, why does it seem like Ron Paul is attacking every other candidate in the race from Perry to Gingrich to Santorum to Huntsman but using kid gloves on the strongest candidate - Romney? Why does Paul not seem to be bothered at the prospects of a third place finish in Iowa or a likely second in New Hampshire? 

I believe the Ron Paul campaign is moving in much the way that the campaign team originally planned when developing its strategy probably some time in early Spring. To understand the campaign strategy I believe it is important to understand how unconventional Dr. Paul's plan is compared to the traditional Republican presidential campaign. It is also important to recall the nature of the 2008 campaigns for the Democratic and to a lesser extent Republican parties.

Reason to Run for President    Ron Paul is not your typical Republican candidate running for president. In fact, I'm not sure any candidate of any prominence recently has run not be president as much as a way to promote a message. Presidential campaigns are a way to bringing new ideas to the party's grassroots. This is probably a clumsy way of accomplishing this goal, but for someone as far out of the mainstream of his party and leadership as Paul is, it is really the only way to express his views on foreign and monetary policies.

This singular motive completely changes your strategy for waging a presidential campaign and, I think, explains the unusual nature of the Paul campaign. It fundamentally alters how you approach debates, advertisements, and campaigning within states. It is also completely different from the traditional Republican campaigns where one looks to score some early decisive wins, show an ability to raise money, and then finish off your rivals on Super Tuesday.

It's about Ideas, not the Office   If your goal is to change the way the party and the country look at issues then your focus is on more than the short term goals of a presidential campaign. Clearly, it would be best for your promotion to win the nomination but a realistic view of the electorate - especially the Republican electorate - would show that Paul's ideas are out of the mainstream. They are growing in prominence (just look at his showing at the Iowa Caucuses from 2008 to 2012 with over 100% growth) but they are at most a large minority within the party probably no more than 25%.

Assets in Place   Despite what many inside the media perceived, Ron Paul had massive assets coming into the campaign. To outsiders, Paul was seen to have a few rabid fans and a large donor base who were small contributors. What they missed was the Campaign for Liberty. 

Launched in 2008, the Campaign for Liberty was a way to keep Ron Paul supporters from 2008 engaged with the Congressman's activities and help promote his views within Congress. This was best exemplified with the push and eventual passage of the Federal Reserve Audit in both the House and Senate. But more importantly, the Campaign for Liberty provided the superstructure for converts to Paul's crusade to network with each other and plan... for 2012.

Although not affiliated with any official Ron Paul campaign, the Campaign for Liberty was the resting home for all of Paul's campaign apparatus which he would need in a 2012 bid for president. Not surprisingly, a strong emphasis was placed on building up the Iowa and New Hampshire Campaign for Liberty teams and successfully getting friendly people put in place within the local and state GOPs. For instance, unofficially, the Paul camp had achieved securing over half of the county GOP chairs or leaders and many on the state's central committee in Iowa.

Most important to realize is that the Campaign for Liberty is a truly national organization with its reach in every state. This means that Paul has de facto campaign bases in each and every state making him competitive on a national scale - not just early primary and caucus states.

An Unorthodox Approach   Because of his unique assets and his even more unusual goals, Rep. Ron Paul, I believe, is engaged in a very unorthodox presidential campaign. He recognizes that although his message is very popular and growing within a section of the electorate - it is by no means a majority position. His plan then is to wage a long drawn out process that relies more on looking towards delegate acquisition than on outright victory - perhaps even winning a single state.

Clearly, winning all the delegates in a state is a goal and will very likely be accomplished in many of the caucus states where Paul's organization and zealous supporters will have the most impact. Winner-take-all primary states are the least desirable for a campaign like Paul's where they feel their message will be viewed in a hostile manner by a majority of the GOP base who receive much of their information from the establishment and its mouthpieces like Levin, Savage, Hannity, and Limbaugh.

The established portions of the party will resist Paul's forces and will probably succeed in many of the caucus states, especially as it becomes more obvious what Rep. Paul is up to. Overall, the primary focus is gaining delegates to gain prominence going into the convention. 

The Not-Romney Candidate   What is becoming increasingly clear, is that the Paul campaign is looking to become what has been termed the "Not-Romney" candidate. Tea Partiers, and the Republican base is definitely disappointed with Romney as their nominee. National polls have shown him to struggle breaking above 30%. Romney represents the liberal East Coast establishment candidate similar to John McCain (who although from Arizona was the epitome of a big government squishy Republican).

The Paul campaign recognized early on that the only candidate that would compete long term was Romney. Therefore, they looked to eliminate the 'chaff' in order to become the de facto 'Not-Romney' candidate. The sooner they can take down the other candidates, the better as it allows them to accumulate a larger share of the delegates. 

The Other Not-Romney Candidates  A quick look at the other candidates trying to make the race a two man race shows how Paul's strategy has been working perfectly. Cain is out. Bachmann is out. Huntsman looks increasingly like a one state wonder who will drop out soon. Perry is limping into NH polling at 1% and around 5% in SC. His future is dim. Gingrich can potentially last a few more weeks but with little funding his earned media will dwindle and he will possibly last a few more states through Florida but he is not on the ballot in his home state and has no funding to compete in a national super Tuesday contest.

That brings us to Santorum who has no funding or organization and will attempt to use his social conservative credentials to sell himself in the South. He will be target number one from the Paul campaign as he is the one who could potentially carve into their delegate count on Super Tuesday if he is still viable - especially if his funding picks up and he is able to run more television spots in Florida and beyond.

I believe the Paul campaign is looking to make the race a two man race as soon as possible. This is probably their schedule:

SC: Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry    LA/WV/FL: Romney, Gingrich, Santorum    WI/NV: Romney, Gingrich/Santorum    NV/ME: Romney, Gingrich/Santorum

Since the other candidates by this point will have lost nearly every contest to Romney their funding and ambition will have dried up and they will be unable to push on to Super Tuesday. Only Paul will remain as the alternative. Obviously, they will endorse Romney to get a plum cabinet spot and Paul will be all that's left.

From there, Paul and his forces will be an enormous thorn in the side of Romney unless he cuts Paul a deal. Whether that is a prime speaking spot at the convention, a VP slot for Rand, a cabinet position, or some other combination. Romney is a man who deals and will want to save his resources and shift his campaign's focus against Obama as soon as possible. This strategy, although not a 'winning one' is one that will have a lasting legacy and impact within the Republican party.

A brokered convention?

The only clear development of the GOP presidential nominating process is that there have been no clear developments. Much like the weather in the Midwest (if you don't like the weather wait 15 minutes and it will change) the leader board in the GOP race for the nomination fluctuates monthly.

I tend to agree with the analysis of Erick Erickson of Redstate that there is Mitt and non-Mitt. Mitt's ceiling lies somewhere in the 25% range. Where you believe the 75% non-Mitt voters will go is impossible to prove. However, Ron Paul's slow and steady burn towards first place and the wild swings in the 'flavor of the month' non-Mitt candidate in Iowa suggests that the 75% is largely in play.

What is becoming a distinct possibility in the process is that well-funded candidates like Paul and Romney and less organized candidates like Perry or Gingrich could carry the nomination through the usual states and Super Tuesday with no one holding a majority of delegates. This would leave candidates to view the nomination process as one of unique process of capturing delegates within different state processes. Politico's story on Ron Paul suggests that his campaign team is already taking this approach.

New rules on delegate assignments with primaries and caucuses also virtually eliminates the possibility of someone wrapping up the nomination early. In order to crack down on the ever-earlier primary and caucuses of states, the national GOP imposed stiff penalties and rules on states that choose to hold their elections before Super Tuesday in March. This means all those states get half of their delegates and that the delegates have to be assigned proportionally - not in a winner take all manner.

If no one has 50%+1 of the delegates going into the convention, then the horse trading will begin. Candidates will offer their delegates in exchange for something (cabinet appointments, vice-presidency, etc.). How such a convention would turn out is anyone's guess. Of course, it is entirely possible that a person would emerge who wasn't even running. (I admit to not being familiar with how the GOP has set up their voting rules except to say that others more in the know see this as a way of having Gov. Christie or Daniels still capturing the nomination).

I believe Ron Paul is the lynchpin in forcing a brokered convention. Clearly, just as in 2008, he will run in each and every state and territory. From Maine to Guam and Alaska to the Virgin Islands. He has an almost unlimited funding apparatus and supporter intensity to challenge anyone all the way to the end even after he has missed any chance of winning. If he acquires a large portion of delegates, let's say 25%, Mitt Romney gets 40%, and Gingrich et al get 35% early on then candidates will be encouraged to linger in the race for as long as they can in order to have a bigger voice at the convention.

Dropping out and endorsing a Romney or Gingrich without being sure which one will capture the nomination might be risky. At a minimum, I think you'll see candidates hang around at least through Super Tuesday since even poor showings would give them something to bargain with. Even 15 delegates might be the difference in putting someone safely over the top heading into the convention and avoid a raucous floor fight.

Imagine the following scenario with completely made up numbers that don't reflect true delegate counts, simply the math of a convention:

Romney:400 delegates, Gingrich:285 delegates, Paul:250 delegates, Perry:40 delegates, Huntsman: 15 delegates, Bachman 10 delegates, Santorum:7 Delegates, Johnson:2 delegates, Roemer:1 delegate.

In this scenario, even if Romney gets the support of every remaining candidate outside of Gingrich (who would have the least reason to deal) he falls short. Even if you fip positions for Romney and Gingrich you get the same result. If we change the delegates to 485 for Romney and 200 for Gingrich you can see how Bachman and Santorum or Huntsman and Roemer could push Romney over the top.

There are obviously hundreds of moving parts and opportunities for people to capitulate and hand over their support and maybe go for that plum ambassadorship to Australia or France. However, it is still a small possibility that the convention could be meaningful for the first time in decades. I tend to think it won't happen because it requires 3 fairly solid candidates (even if maybe the third is a collection of the rest capturing enough delegates to easily prevent a majority). After Michigan's primary in February I think the picture will be much clearer.

More GOP Polling Fun

The website “Polls and Votes” has an interesting (and somewhat discouraging) analysis of Gallup polling data.

You should be able to click on the photo to enlarge, but here’s an overview: gray lines represent name recognition amongst voters, over time; red lines represent favorability of the candidate over time.  Note that neither Gary Johnson nor Buddy Roemer are included.  The vertical axis represents height (as a percentage) of name recognition; the horizontal axis represents time (beginning in January of this year).  One would expect minor variations in name recognition just as a function of different polling samples.

So, what do we see?

1. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, when polled at the beginning of the year, had a high degree of name recognition.  Amongst this year’s candidates, Ron Paul has consistently been just barely behind them in terms of recognition.  That’s the good news—Ron Paul no longer elicits “Who’s Ron Paul?” reactions.  Around 90 percent of those polled know who he is—within a couple of points of the former Speaker of the House and former Governor of Massachusetts. 
2. That suggests that favorability has little to do (for those candidates) with increased visibility/recognition (like, for instance, Cain and Bachmann’s numbers, which—at least for a time—paralleled each other, with favorability growing as recognition grew).
3. The goal, then, for highly recognized politicians, would be to have a growing level of favorability (or in the case of already highly favorable views, a maintenance).

Now, with the caveat that these numbers are still likely to be pretty volatile for a month or two—at least until the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary are out of the way—the trend at the moment doesn’t look good for either Paul or Romney (although Paul has a higher gap to bridge between recognition and favorability than does Romney), and is (right now) looking pretty good for Gingrich. Of course we all know that Gingrich has plenty of baggage—and a mouth—which could backfire on him.

Gingrich and Romney have to be careful with each other, I think—both have high recognition, and both of their favorability numbers are probably somewhat brittle at this point—Gingrich going negative on Romney, and Romney retaliating, could end up in the favorables for both of them plummeting (although my personal opinion is that Gingrich is even more likely to harm himself with an exchange that is perceived as negative).  But what about Ron Paul?

Paul’s favorability numbers have trended downward since his announcement in March.  They’re currently at about 20%—very close to Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann numbers, and still below (by about 10 points) Herman Cain’s numbers, even post-sexual harassment accusations.  Dr. Paul’s supporters are probably the most enthusiastic and confirmed in the whole field—but it appears that they are still relatively small in number.

Ron Paul’s highest favorability numbers came in the first month or so of his candidacy this year (as did Mitt Romney’s).  But the danger to both of them at this point (as opposed to Gingrich), is that the trend is down instead of up.  Gingrich dropped through the summer, but has since been trending upward (although Romney’s favorables have been more steady, and his low point is still higher than Ron Paul’s high point was).

With only a little over 5 weeks until we get into the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire straw poll, these favorable numbers are critical to these three candidates (and to an extent, the other highly recognized candidates: Bachmann, Cain, and Perry). 

Every campaign has these two elements: name recognition, and buying what the candidate is selling.  Five months ago, almost everyone knew who Newt Gingrich was, but very were buying.  That seems to be changing.  Ron Paul started out with high recognition numbers, which have continued to trend upward—his problem is that the favorability for him hasn’t increased.  How he changes that in the next two months, I don’t know.  I’m pretty sure that sign-waving and brow-beating by his supporters aren’t going to do the trick…

Rick Perry’s Stock Rising Fast

 

 

 

 

 

 

Over at Intrade, Rick Perry is toe to toe with Romney at about a 31% chance of being the 2012 GOP nominee.

Ron Paul is at 2.3% … darn it.

Romney Campaign's $1 Million Loot from Mystery Firm

Mitt Romney, the corporate media-sanctioned front-runner, has been the recipient of one the largest political donations ever this election season. Except how his campaign received some of these money is raising some serious legal questions.

A mystery company that pumped $1 million into a political committee backing Mitt Romney has been dissolved just months after it was formed, leaving few clues as to who was behind one of the biggest contributions yet of the 2012 presidential campaign.

A former FEC counsel describes it as "subterfuge" while Dave Weigel calls it money laundering.

Who are these people donating such large sums to Romney anyway? According to Politico, Romney's donor list includes a billionaire who profited off the housing bubble's collapse, bankers, and a few wealthy people.

This campaign revelation has come at a bad time for Romney. With the debt ceiling brouhaha over and no major news going on in the next few weeks, all eyes are will be on him.¹ His prolonged silence in the debt ceiling debate, Sarah Palin's salvo, fellow Mormon John Huntsman's imploding campaign, his non-participation in the Ames Straw Poll, and now this mysterious campaign donation will ensure that he will suffer the brunt of unwelcome media scrutiny in the next few days.

Though, it is doubtful that this controversy would seriously hurt Romney's presidential campaign in any significant way. If his ideological flip-flops have not hurt his lead in the polls, then why would illegal contributions? If anything, this would be seen as yet another media-led witch-hunt against the wealthy and their expensive political speech. Romney would only benefit from such "attack."

Cross-posted to Politics by Jayel Aheram.

¹ Except the deepening famine crisis in Somalia, the increased violence in Afghanistan and Iraq, the continued violence in Libya, the stock market's free-fall, the weakening dollar, and so on. But I digress.

Where Are Romney & Rubio?

Real Clear Politics picked up and wrote about a topic that's been bubbling up to the top of some of the GOP 2012 discussion forums:   Romney's Low Profile on Budget Debate... 

The headline adds a couple of more words: "Rankles Foes" but I'm not really rankled. I don't expect him to actually take a position on it, because he doesn't need to.  The GOP rank-and-file is sharply divided on this issue, and Romney knows, better than any of the other politicians in the race, that it's much easier to avoid taking a position than it is to take both sides a position.  He has nothing to gain by taking either position, so therefore it's best for him to go on vacation.

(In other words, I expect him to be a spineless political sociopath in matters of electoral politics, so there's not much to get rankled about.  He's Mitt Romney, and as such it is safe to assume he is firmly on both sides of every issue, including this one.)

However, another "exciting new face" has also been conspicuously absent from the cameras and editorial pages: that of Florida's TEA Party darling Marco Rubio.   

It's understandable. I mean if you wanted to be Mitt Romney's vice-president, isn't this what you'd do?  

It's too soon to oficially chant, "I told you so," but it painfully obvious that, like Allan West, Rubio is another "Bait-N-Switch" candidate.  He ran and won on a record that didn't match his rhetoric, but in the race between Rubio and Crist it was pretty difficult to argue that Rubio wasn't the more conservative. And so, the TEA Party adopted him by default.

Yep - I said it. Rubio is not really not conservative enough to be considered a TEA Party candidate, and calling him that requires ignoring both the subtle signs of betrayal in his voting record as well as the Sentaor's distinct elucidations that he isn't a true TEA Party supporter. In short, he's a hard core member of the GOP and as such we can assume that McConnell won't ever need to sneer at him to "get his ass in line," as Boehner recently did to his Tea Party dissenters.

However, while adding Rubio to the Romney ticket won't bring in the excitement that Palin brought to McCain, it will bring Romney a claim of having a small government VP,, a significant chunk of the TEA Party media attention, and of course, the ever-gullible disenfranchised GOP vote.

And the small government movement will lose again.

Romney: Gettin' Bailed Out Before Bailouts Were Cool

From Politico, a unaired campaign ad from the Kennedy / Romney race of a few years back: