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? 

 

Comments

[Georg Thomas]

Fascinating read, thanks, Angela. Just shot off a long comment into nirvana.

VUZsdifzupo32894ß03ßü""14&5/hell!!!!

Upshot: I can't see RP-Romney coaltion happen; positions too wide apart. But there are people, like Laura, and perhaps Rand and Ron, who can be accomodating and yet principled in ways inaccessible to me or my imagination.

At any rate, Romney would have to get rid of his "embarrassing" vice-prsident in the shortest period of time. But RP in vice-presidential position -- unique opportunity to promote the agenda of liberty and to show that being president is a much needed opportunity and tantamount to the duty to bring down government-and-presidential power to levels so low most have never contemplated the feasibility, let alone the necessity of which.

[Laura Ebke]

Jim Demint has also made comments about the GOP needing to pay attention to the libertarian wing of the party, as well.

Several of us have had this conversation over the last few days, so here are some thoughts:

1) All vice presidents still have "ceremonial" offices in the Senate. Lyndon Johnson (maybe Hubert Humphrey) was the last one to really use it in a meaningful way (Agnew may have tried)--and having been Majority Leader, Johnson KNEW how to use it.

2) The problem with the Rand VP option is several-fold: a) it would implicitly require Ron to endorse Romney, instead of keeping his mouth shut, or endorsing Johnson. If he does that, does he lose credibility with his supporters, who then say "oh, so it was just about politics, not really about making change"? b) Rand could be shut out of decisionmaking just like Truman was (assuming a Romney win)--not even knowing that we had an atomic bomb or how WWII was being waged, or what discussions had been had with Churchill and Stalin.... c)if Romney loses, then Rand is in the position of having been part of that losing ticket. I didn't do a comprehensive historical search, and I may have missed someone, but I can only find one example, from either party, in the last 100+ years where a VP candidate on a losing ticket has later gotten his party's Presidential nomination...Bob Dole, who was the VP candidate in 1976 for Ford, and who (20 years later!) got the presidential nomination in '96(but of course didn't win). That's not to say that it's impossible, but I'm not sure that being on the losing ticket is necessarily the way to get yourself elected to the top spot 4 years later...

Even assuming Romney could win, Vice Presidents only get to do as much as the President will let them (related to "b", above). Before signaling that there might even be an interest in being considered, I think the Pauls need to sit down and discuss how much of a risk they'd be willing to take that Romney would give Rand significant responsibility, and whether it's worth giving up a prominent place in the Senate. Personally, if deals are going to be made, I'd hold out for naming Ron to the Cabinet--maybe Secretary of the Treasury...

[Georg Thomas]

I wrote of Laura: "...accomodating and yet principled in ways inaccessible to me or my imagination ..."

The second part of the sentence (... in ways inaccesible to me or my imagination ...) can give rise to misunderstanding.

I do not mean to be ironic. Just leave that part out, and you get my meaning.

[Laura Ebke]

My husband says that my mind is inaccessible to him a lot of the time, as well, Georg. No offense taken. I know what you mean.