The Case for a Romney-Paul Ticket

Paul's presence would give the ticket something it has lacked up to this point: spine.

If he has proved nothing else, Ron Paul—the last of the GOP’s not-Romneys to drop out of the campaign—has proved Calvin Coolidge right when Coolidge said “nothing in the world can take the place of persistence.” Every other challenger to Mitt Romney pulled an Icarus—soaring into the stratosphere only to crash and burn. Paul, meanwhile, just kept plugging along below the radar.

Two weeks ago he won 21 of Maine’s 24 delegates to the Republican Convention. He did the same in Nevada, taking 22 of the state’s 25 delegates. He may have a majority of Iowa’s delegates as well.

Paul still has fewer delegates than either Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich did when they dropped out of the nomination contest. The Republican Party’s baroque rules also require many delegates to vote for Romney on the first ballot, which makes it unlikely there will be a second round in which Paul’s devotees can switch their votes.

Nevertheless, former McCain aide Mike Dennehy recently said Romney is “being very careful because he knows how important the Ron Paul voters are....They are the most passionate and the most frustrated of any voters.” And that’s one thing Paul would bring to the Romney ticket which it lacks now: intensity.

How much intensity? Well, the Las Vegas Sun says Paul supporters spent the past four years infiltrating the GOP apparatus in Nevada; media reports routinely refer to Paul’s “army of enthusiastic and determined backers”—many of whom proudly sport “Ron Paul Revolution” bumper stickers and T-shirts.

Contrast that with the general GOP attitude toward the front-runner, which humorist Andy Borowitz correctly sums up thusly: “POLL: Majority of Republicans Guess They Have to Support [Expletive] Romney.” Picking Paul as his running mate would enable Romney to draft the Texas congressman’s revolutionary army—or at least a good portion of it. 

It also would give the ticket something else it has lacked up to this point: spine. Romney is notorious for changing his positions on the issues. Paul is widely admired for sticking to his (mostly) libertarian principles.

Those principles will offend some members of the conservative base—especially when it comes to foreign policy, where Paul sounds more like liberal Democrat Dennis Kucinich than Dick Cheney. Going up against Obama/Biden, Paul would be the only candidate of the four to have opposed the Patriot Act. Nor will many right-wingers approve of Paul’s position on the war on drugs (“a detriment to personal liberty”; “why is it we can't put into our body whatever we want?”) prostitution (legalize it) or gay marriage (ditto). But they will like his tough stance on immigration, his longstanding opposition to abortion, and his reputation as “Dr. No” for voting against legislation not expressly authorized in the Constitution.

And if Paul is Kucinich on foreign policy, then he is Paul Ryan on federal spending. Make that Ryan on ’roids: In February, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget released a report showing that only one GOP presidential  contender’s policy proposals—Paul’s—would actually reduce the deficit. Paul would cut taxes by $5.2 trillion over a 10-year span, but he would slash spending by $7.2 trillion—and eliminate five Cabinet-level departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education)—in the process.

From Romney’s perspective, there are naturally some downsides. Paul comes from a reliably Republican state, so unlike Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida or Rob Portman of Ohio—or Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell—he adds nothing to the Electoral College count. Unlike Rubio, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley or New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, he doesn’t diversify the ticket. And unlike New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, he lacks star power.

But that last characteristic is a feature rather than a bug—at least if you believe Mike Murphy, a GOP operative who used to advise Romney and who cites what he calls the “Hollywood agent” rule. He puts it this way: “If I’m Robert Redford's agent and the studio calls up and says, ‘hey, we're going to do a Redford movie and we know he's old, but...there's a sidekick. And guess what? Good news. We're thinking of Brad Pitt.’ If I'm Robert Redford's agent, I'm going to say, ‘we're thinking of Ernest Borgnine’—because it's all about Redford, not the up-and-coming star next to him.”

Of course, all of this could be looking at the question through the wrong end of the telescope. It’s not hard to come up with a few reasons Romney might want to ask Paul to the prom. But what reasons would Paul have to say yes?

A. Barton Hinkle is a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch, where this article originally appeared.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    Putting Ron Paul on the ticket would give his views legitimacy, which is why it will not happen.

  • sarcasmic||

    Also, fried firsties!

  • Mo' $parky||

    Contrast that with the general GOP attitude toward the front-runner, which humorist Andy Borowitz correctly sums up thusly: "POLL: Majority of Republicans Guess They Have to Support [Expletive] Romney." Picking Paul as his running mate would enable Romney to draft the Texas congressman's revolutionary army—or at least a good portion of it.

    Doubtful. I'd bet most of them would vote LP instead of backing R$. Plus, this assumes that the reason Repubs don't like R$ is a reason Paul would fill.

  • John||

    The rank and file GOP will suck it up and vote for Romney no matter what. They hate Obama that much. As for Paul's army who knows. But if Libertarians finally got a no kidding Libertarian on a national ticket, even as a VP , and they refused to vote for said ticket, they are just fucking hopeless. You have to take victories where you can get them.

  • sloopyinca||

    But if Libertarians finally got a no kidding Libertarian on a national ticket, even as a VP , and they refused to vote for said ticket, they are just fucking hopeless.

    What the fuck do you consider the Johnson/Gray ticket, John? Jesus, get out of the two-team bubble. Johnson is already starting to poll well...in the polls he is mentioned in, btw. If he gets into the debate, he will siphon off plenty of votes from both of the assholes...running to the right of them both on fiscal matters and the left of them both on civil liberties. Not to mention, he'll kick both of their asses on foreign policy and bringing all the soldiers home post haste.

  • Mo' $parky||

    he'll kick both of their asses on foreign policy and bringing all the soldiers home post haste.

    From the Libertarian perspective. This stance will also more firmly plant the GOP leaners with the GOP and the Dem leaners with the Dems.

  • sloopyinca||

    I don't agree. Team Blue is preaching up foreign intervention as a good thing, and their team is going along with Obama because Romney's position is the same. The anti-war voters would leave them in droves.

    On the right, the tea partiers hate Romney's big government approach to governance, but are going along since Obama is the same. They would leave Team Red in droves as well.

    And as far as the civil liberties crowd, a candidate saying he will bring all of our troops home, commits to defending the borders with a vengeance while giving us back many of our freedoms (and conveniences) that have been stripped by both parties, Johnson has a great platform.

  • John||

    Who is the civil liberties crowd? The five people who have heard of Johnson? Obama has killed civil liberties in this country. It is hopeless. He made everything Bush did "bi Partisan" and nearly all of the people who were angry at Bush have been revealed to be partisan hacks by giving Obama a pass.

  • sloopyinca||

    Plenty of people aren't even aware of the civil liberties that have shrank since 9/11 under Team Red/Blue. If Johnson got a national stage at the debates, he could point out how fucked the two parties are and where they have taken away our liberties together.

    That's the civil liberties crowd. They just need to be awoken from their hypnosis.

  • Mo' $parky||

    You could be right but I don't see it playing out that way. I don't hold much hope for the future under this current system.

  • ReformRealist||

    Gary Johnson should make reform of the current system a central part of his campaign. I can't really think of a compelling reason not to.

  • sloopyinca||

    Well ^^this^^ of course. Voter reform is the only way to break the two party stranglehold on our system.

  • ReformRealist||

    The only problkem is that he has not really talked about it yet.

  • sloopyinca||

    He's talking, but the media isn't listening. Voter reform was a central part of the LP convention, and Romney is a big proponent. He's spending his time establishing a coherent and articulate message. That message will hopefully come out soon.

  • ReformRealist||

    What has he mentioned exactly because he hasn't touched on it in any interview I've seen since. He does not devote a section to it on his website.

  • SIV||

    Damn it Sloopy! You drank the colloidal silver, didn't you?

  • ReformRealist||

    I think a pledge by Johnson to say conduct a legal review of all actions by Administrations over the last 30 years could also likely help with people on the left. As a result, he could suggest he would prosecute Bush admin. officials, which would be in stark contrast to Obama and Romney.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'd very much like to see this proposed. It won't hurt is Jim Gray calls for the prosecutions either. A federal judge calling for it has a bit of clout, IMO.

  • GW||

    He won't get into the debates, unless he buys a ticket and sits in the audience.

  • sloopyinca||

    15% in the polls guarantees him access, but 5% likely gets him in if he files an injunction on the FEC, since that % of the vote gets federally matching funds.

  • GW||

    I have no confidence that will be followed. He can sue all he wants. It's establishment turtles all the way down.

    I always kinda thought the debates were more or less private sector events anyway, and they could do whatever the hell they wanted.

  • sloopyinca||

    The rules for the debates are typically approved by the FEC, which runs the real show.

  • John||

    A ticket that gets less than 10% is not a national ticket. And you people need to grow up and understand the world is not going to come falling at your feet and admit the error of their ways. It takes decades to move political opinion and get things done.

    There is a reason why liberals have accomplish so much (much of it bad). It is because they are fucking relentless. They never give up and they take every single inch given to them. They never stand and lose on principle when they can move and move things a little bit there way. It is cynical as hell. But you can't deny their success.

    Libertarians could learn something from them. It doesn't pay to be the Cassandra even if you are right. The constant search for who is more true Scotish is why Libertarians are losers. It is why they can't get anywhere even though the are right about most things.

    Think about this for a moment. Libertarians are right. The age of big government is coming apart. Every day something happens that proves Libertarians more right. Yet, Libertarians are still on the fringe. Why? Oh I know it is because of the evil stupid people. Yeah whatever. It is because Libertarians could fuck up a cup of coffee. They could manage the 27 Yankees to last place.

  • GW||

    That may be part of it, but let's face it, the uninformed masses want to have their cake and eat it too. Free shit is popular.

    Until the pendulum comes crashing back the other way.....

  • John||

    Why are the masses uniformed? Whose fault is that? Maybe if there were say a Libertarian on one of the major party tickets, the masses wouldn't be quite so uninformed anymore.

  • GW||

    You can't make people listen to a message. We started out with allowing only land owners to vote for a reason.

    For christ's sake I had a liberal mention, in a discussion, that one of Obama's achievements was that he caught Saddam. He wasn't confusing him with OBL, because he mentioned him too. He honestly thought Obama was responsible for that.

    You just can't fix that kind of out of touch mentality.

  • ||

    You can't make people listen to a message but you can expose them to it. More and more of the unconverted are starting to hear the things that people like Ron Paul have to say and are starting to agree. The more the message is out there, the more people will hear it and start to agree with the things we talk about. Most of us here had to pick up the right literature or here something that someone had to say before we realized the moral virtue of libertarianism.

  • GW||

    But the masses that support establishment candidates are already satisfied that they're doing the right thing. They're not interested in a different message. You can talk until you're blue in the face, but from their standpoint, you're nuts.

  • NeonCat||

    Are you saying Obamessiah cannot reach through time and space to accomplish his ends?

    That's it, you're getting free-trade vegan coal in your mandated healthcare plan, and you'll have to pay for the carbon-offsets yourself.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I think you mean "Fair-trade vegan coal"; free-trade coal is actually a good thing, since it means no tariffs for importing it.

  • pmains||

    Also, Fair Trade Vegan Coal would be a great band name.

  • ||

    Libertarians lose elections because voters want free shit, they want to run their neighbors lives, and they want to run the lives of people they'll never meet.

  • sarcasmic||

    "Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."
    -Heinlein's Lazarus Long
  • sloopyinca||

    Yeah, we should sacrifice our principles to move things a little way in our favor!

    What the fuck ever. And nice how you said liberals do it, when Team Red has been complicit in stripping us of our liberties on a daily basis for just over 10 years (at least). Fuck them both. I would rather remain a principled outsider than a compromising douchenozzle like the fucksticks in Congress and the WH.

  • John||

    Then don't whine and complain when no one gives a shit what you think or ever adopts your ideas. For the second time, get over yourself. The world is never going to admit the errors of its ways and come begging at your feet for forgiveness. It doesn't work that way. If you are unwilling to take half a loaf and work to change things over time, you will forever be a fringe kook. And honestly, I think being a fringe kook is what appeals to some people about Libertarianism. There is a little bit of "I was listening to them before they were popular" going on. And it is just fucking nuts.

  • strat||

    There are a lot of people who would never have been conceived were it not for indie cred.

  • ||

    Yeah, I don't look at TEAM BLUE or TEAM RED and think, "Now these guys know how to get things done!"

  • John||

    They manage to completely dominate the electoral system for 150 years and build the largest government in the history of the world. How do you plan to undo all of that without actually winning an election once in a while?

  • ||

    Electing a douchebag like Romney is not "winning" in any sense of the word. It's merely joining TEAM RED/TEAM BLUE in getting your gang in charge.

  • sloopyinca||

    Look, John. You and I disagree. And while you're telling me to "get over myself" for sticking to my core principles, I won't point at you and yell "sellout," because you are a Team Red waterboy.

    No offense, but you perpetuate the system by hoping for "incremental" change, which is impossible. Incrementalism only works when rights are being gradually stripped away. You cannot gradually institute freedom when the default position of a government is to subject it's citizens to it's whims and will.

  • sarcasmic||

    Incrementalism only works when rights are being gradually stripped away.

    Exactly. The logical conclusion of a system that lacks a mechanism and incentive to do away with shitty rules is totalitarianism.
    In our system of checks and balances that is the role of the judicial branch, but they dropped the ball.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Yeah, we should sacrifice our principles to move things a little way in our favor!

    Science, Sloopy, wasn't it you who argued that the Libertarians could take Federal matching funds and remain the party of principle? When I questioned this, I got the "purity test!" responses.

    As long as the party is "Libertarian" they can do anything. Voting for any other candidate who is not a pure Libertarian is "compromising principle"?

    I ask not be snarky but because I ask myself these questions.

  • jacob the barbarian||

    If sloop is correct and gradual change is only possible when it comes to the erosion of rights, then the only sane alternative is armed revolution. You are NOT going to see a winning pure LP presidential ticket anytime soon. Paul is half a loaf, Romney is have a turd. If that is not going to work, then it is either whine of take up arms. Whining accomplishes nothing.

  • Bill||

    I agree with John on this one, sloopy.

    If Paul was on the ticket it would expose voters to some new ideas for the first time. They rarely let him talk in the debates. He would likely clean up in a debate with Biden.

    And he might just be able to get Romney to agree to one or two important things. Not sure if that would be minor concessions in the war on drugs like leaving states alone on medical MJ, or getting Romney to agree to cut military spending by 4% instead of increasing it.

    Or maybe transparency for FED or getting rid of a few of Obamas civil liberties encroachments with Patriot Act. Would not be hard to work Repubs. into a frenzy over Obama being a busy-body.

    My fear is that a Repub. victory followed by all of our economic chickens coming home to roost would be blamed on free market, austerity, etc. and w/ Paul on ticket, it would also be all of the libertarian policies fault even if none were adopted. Might be best to let Obama win, destroy the economy, and rebuild from the ashes.

  • Mo' $parky||

    Shorter John:

    Your principles? Losers always whine about their principles. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen!

  • John||

    I know you meant that as a pejorative Mo. But there is a lot of truth to that. At some point, you have to get something done. And it doesn't all come at once. Five years ago, it was unthinkable for Paul to be mentioned as a VP. Now it is a serious if unlikely possible. Him being the VP would be a huge deal. Fuck the prom queen and worry about the rest later.

  • Mo' $parky||

    The reason you think that way is the reason you fit so comfortably in Team Red's lap. You honestly can't understand holding onto your principles if it means losing. Just give in a little here or a little there if it gets you into the winner's circle. Before you know it, you won't have any more of those pesky principles holding you back and you can win everything.

  • John||

    Then you will forever be a loser MO. And more imporantly you will forever be a fanatic. The world is never going to 100% agree with you. Unless you can become dictator, you will have to work in a political system and compromise. If you don't, you will never get anything you want. And more importantly, compromising and letting other people who disagree with you is not "selling out your principles".

    Seriously, what do you people want? It seems to me you want all or nothing. And to get all means telling everyone who disagrees with you they get no say whatsoever in their government.

  • John||

    And one other question Mo. Suppose Johnson won. Lets say he was President. You dont' think he would have to compromise with Congress and sign things he didn't like and accomplish some or a little of what he set out? Would you think him a sellout for doing so? Would anything short of absolute no compromise accomplish nothing Presidency be a sellout?

  • sloopyinca||

    Lets say he was President. You dont' think he would have to compromise with Congress and sign things he didn't like and accomplish some or a little of what he set out?

    Seeing as he vetoed more bills (from a GOP-controlled legislature) than the governors from the other 49 states combined when he was the governor of NM, what makes you think he would compromise if elected President?

  • sloopyinca||

    And FWIW, he can do many things by executive order and with the power of the pardon.

  • Mo' $parky||

    And one other question Mo. Suppose Johnson won. Lets say he was President. You dont' think he would have to compromise with Congress and sign things he didn't like and accomplish some or a little of what he set out? Would you think him a sellout for doing so? Would anything short of absolute no compromise accomplish nothing Presidency be a sellout?

    Once again John, never once anywhere did I claim to be a Libertarian so I don't really follow Gary Johnson. Maybe you missed my comment above that I have no confidence in what has become of our government. I think it is hopelessly broken and anyone that takes any part of it is just making the problem worse. Sure there are some politicians around that I think lean in the right direction but before we can get things put right the whole thing has to be stripped to bare wood.

  • John||

    Fair enough Mo.

  • Emperor Wears No Clothes||

    I know you meant that as a pejorative Mo. But there is a lot of truth to that

    Too funny. John thinks being called a sellout is a compliment. A badge of honor.

    What I see in John is someone passing as, well, whatever he claims to be, but really just wanting to join the club and get his piece.

    We had that in Canada. The Reform Party was a bunch of grumpy old white men determined to smash the 2 1/2 party system we have up here. Nobody know who they were for the first 10 years. Then they got a senator appointed after a non-binding election in one province. Then they get a female MP elected. Then a few more seats. Then a reverse takeover of the old-guard Progressive Conservative Party, two terms as minority government, and now one of the most authoritarian, wasteful, interventionist majority parties in the history of Canada.

    Sellout.

  • Jerryskids||

    "Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price."

    If you are unwilling to take half a loaf and work to change things over time, you will forever be a fringe kook.

    How do you plan to undo all of that without actually winning an election once in a while?

    Five years ago, it was unthinkable for Paul to be mentioned as a VP. Now it is a serious if unlikely possible.

    Notice how those statements don't quite jibe? Or did the Libertarians win some elections over the last 5 years I am unaware of? How about we just go back to Reagan, would that be asking too much?

  • Loki||

    Nice reference to The Rock. Quite possibly one of the most underrated* movies of all time.

    *Of course, it only worked because of Sean Connery, and to a lesser extent Nicholas Cage. With anyone else in the lead roles it would have sucked ass.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Huh. I hated that movie. And I like Sean Connery in most of his films.

  • sloopyinca||

  • Loki||

    On paper I agree. It was complete Michael Bay action porn crap. The only thing that makes it work is Sean Connery. Anyone else and the movie would have been total crap.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The movie was total crap. Don't let the awesomeness of Connery distract you from that essential truth. I like Ed Harris, too. So what?

  • Emperor Wears No Clothes||

    Nice reference to The Rock. Quite possibly one of the most underrated* movies of all time.
    If by "most underrated" you mean "biggest steaming piles of shit, with or without Nic Cage in it" then I totally agree.

  • Tonio||

    you people need to grow up

    John, I teach public speaking and communication. One of the first things I teach is that when you define your audience's needs, especially in a hostile or condescending manner, you've lost them. Please accept this lesson as my gift to you.

    Also, tl;dr.

  • RoninX||

    There are plenty of libertarian pragmatists, but they tend not to post on message boards.

    My pragmatic hope for moving the US in a more libertarian direction, knowing full well that perfection is impossible is:

    1) Ron Paul manages to gain visibility and attract a large number of young people to the GOP and the libertarian message. DONE.

    2) Gary Johnson gets nominated to be the LP Presidential candidate. DONE.

    3) Peter Thiel decides to contribute millions to support Johnson's campaign via Thiel's Super PAC, and gets the libertarian message on the airwaves this fall. POSSIBLE. Johnson and Thiel have at least discussed this.

    4) The LP wins 5-10% of the popular vote and gets credit/blame for causing Romney's loss. QUITE POSSIBLE.

    5) In 2016, Rand Paul runs for the GOP presidential nomination. VERY LIKELY.

    6) The GOP realizes that they can't win without their libertarian wing. QUITE POSSIBLE, if (4) happens.

    7) In 2016, Rand Paul wins the GOP presidential nomination. WHO KNOWS?

    Neither Ron Paul nor Rand Paul is my ideal candidate. I'm pro-choice, pro-immigration, and more hawkish on defense. That said, they're both men of principle, as is Johnson, and they would both move the country in the right direction.

  • cthorm||

    Seriously stuff the high horse crap. A THIRD PARTY WILL NEVER SERIOUSLY CONTEND FOR THE PRESIDENCY IN THE US. It's impossible because we have an awful, awful winner-take-all system, and worse it's based on indirect voting. The spoiler effect is too strong. Now, the presidency is actually a better shot than congressional seats for a 3rd party, which isn't saying much. Unless there is a libertarian on this GOP ticket, I'm voting for Johnson. But I'll vote for a ticket with Paul on it.

  • RoninX||

    Libertarians need to realize that the spoiler effect is the only power we have. We can't make the country purely libertarian with 15-20% of the population. However, we can make some libertarian principles part of a major party agenda, if they want to win elections.

  • BenDFW||

    I don't think a third party will ever get a chance of winning on a national election until there are huge fractions of the democrats and republicans running for the same office. Hasn't exactly happened since an empty suit with almost no experience in office won with less than 30% of the vote. The country didn't react very well and soon splintered apart and fought a war over it. This might be a huge reason why we have a two party system. Nothing worse than the winner coming in with only 1/4th the support of the country.

  • TheAtomicOption||

    Voting for Gary Johnson is a protest vote. We all know he's not going to *win the presidency*, but if we vote for him anyway, we can show how many of us there are. A Romney/Paul ticket on the other hand actually has a chance of *winning* the election. Paul might be able to actually cast a vote that matters if the Senate gets deadlocked on something. Or he could even become president if some crazy Obama supporter bum rushes Romney with a gat.

    We're locked in the two team bubble by the rules of voting in this country. I only vote for the middle when there's no redeeming factor to either side.

  • perlhaqr||

    If he gets into the debate

    Yeah, well. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on that.

  • Mo' $parky||

    But if Libertarians finally got a no kidding Libertarian on a national ticket, even as a VP , and they refused to vote for said ticket, they are just fucking hopeless. You have to take victories where you can get them.

    I daresay that enough Libertarians have enough principles to not vote for R$ just because Paul is VP. I don't know that I'd call Paul being VP and Libertarian victory.

  • TheAtomicOption||

    Not sure what you mean by "enough". VP Paul would definitely be a libertarian victory--obviously not a complete victory, but it would be a victory compared to him not having an office at all.

  • GW||

    I don't see it would be much of a victory unless someone shoots Romney 2 minutes after he's sworn in. The VP is largely powerless.

    I'm wondering if Paul would even accept the invitation to be Romney's running mate. He'd then be part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

  • sloopyinca||

    Paul would accept the spot if he is nominated and voted in from the convention floor. That would legitimize the position a lot more than accepting Romney's invite.

  • GW||

    I don't know why he would. He'd be joining the exact establishment he's been fighting. He'd ruin his credibility.

  • Drake||

    He is already a REPUBLICAN member of the U.S. House of Representatives. He couldn't get more establishment without marrying Hillary Clinton.

  • Emperor Wears No Clothes||

    +1

  • JoshSN||

    While I'm not a libertarian, and I think there is no chance Romney would choose Paul as V-P, I do think it would lend support to the libertarian cause, overall, by bringing it to a wider audience.

    Also, he might just sit in the Senate all day, threatening to break ties and generally presiding, which is some power, if not much.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I'm wondering if Paul would even accept the invitation to be Romney's running mate.

    I would be shocked if it were offered, and further shocked if accepted.

  • Jerryskids||

    I believe someone pointed out downthread that Paul is a Republican. Paul accepting the VP slot would say more about Paul than about Romney. Andthat's not good. Paul accepting the VP slot would effectively kill the LP, I think. Not that some people in the GOP wouldn't love to see that.

  • rts||

    diversify the ticket.

    *barf*

  • BakedPenguin||

    Both TEAMS are reactive. TEAM BLUE has reacted to claims that they're weak on crime by building (union staffed) prisons and hiring more (union) cops. They've reacted to the claim they're wimpy on foreign policy by becoming drone happy interventionists. Meanwhile, they still murmur pointless nothings in the ear of their base about the disproportionate effects of criminal policy on minorities, and negotiating prior to bombing other countries.

    TEAM RED has reacted to claims they want to starve the chilluns / minorities / granny by throwing out any moral arguments against welfare programs in favor of pointing out that unsustainable spending is unsustainable, and they are the true saviors of food stamps / Medicare / Social Security. They have reacted against claims that they are racist by instituting a de facto affirmative action program where female and minority Republicans get a better chance to have leadership roles where they might be seen by the public as proof of the non-racism of TEAM RED. Then they murmur their sweet nothings to their base about actual spending cuts and ending preference programs.

    There are a great deal more examples, obviously.

  • Bill||

    And this is how shit happens! Sad.

  • TheAtomicOption||

    This. I'm sick of people claiming that diversity is good for it's own sake. Most of the time they're talking about race or gender, and they're using race or gender as a proxy for something that neither is a proxy for.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Being VP would give him no more power over and much more culpability for the fiscal and military shenanigans that are guaranteed to occur over the next few years.

    It's like joining the military with the intention of creating world peace. BAD IDEA.

  • John||

    But being a VP gives you big influence on the party. And it makes you and your ideas acceptable on the national stage. If Paul were a VP, people could no longer say that positions like ending the drug war are beyond the pale. You can't say that when a sitting VP holds said positions. It would do more to make libertarian ideas main stream than anything in the past 50 years.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    He wouldn't promise to shut support Romney's every policy sight unseen and to keep his mouth shut if he disagrees with the administration."

    A Vice President can't be fired. What's to stop him from speaking his mind? That's why Romney will probably not even consider nominating him.

  • Penis Carrot||

    Sure, because when Obama-Biden were elected, I suddenly thought, "Oh, credible Biden is now! Let's expand Amtrak!" No, mainly I pray for his health. VP's are ignored unless the President's health is an issue, or it's 2 years into the second term and the VP might run for President.

  • TheAtomicOption||

    Or there's a tie to break in the Senate.

  • Emperor Wears No Clothes||

    But being a VP gives you big influence on the party. And it makes you and your ideas acceptable on the national stage. If Paul were a VP, people could no longer say that positions like ending the drug war are beyond the pale. You can't say that when a sitting VP holds said positions. It would do more to make libertarian ideas main stream than anything in the past 50 years.

    Gotta agree with John here. Just look what happened after the bonehead Biden opened his yap. It forced Barry to come out of the closet on gay rights.

  • ||

    First of all, Romney is not going to ask Paul to be his VP. Secondly, even if someone put a gun to his head and made him ask, Paul isn't going to accept. In the third place, no amount of Ron Paul seasoning will ever convince me to order the Mitt fucking Romney meal. And D, voting for Romney/Paul just encourages the republicans to toss us trinkets instead of anything worth having.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Didn't even have to RTFA, this is article is pure horseshit. You can do better Reason.

  • The Duchess||

    I thought I had left The Onion tab open...

  • ||

    I still wouldn't vote for Romney, but if this did happen, then at least we'd have the possibility of an unlikely "Lee Harvey Oswald Moment" to give us hope.

  • ||

    Poor taste.

  • ||

    "Poor taste." says the man who enjoys Harvey Birdman.

    Pot; kettle; you know the rest.

  • Loki||

    All that a "Lee Harvey Oswald Moment" would do is make Mittens into some sort of martyr similar to JFK. I suspect that Kennedy wouldn't be held in anywhere near as high esteem if he hadn't been assassinated.

    People might actually remember him for Bay of Pigs, the start of the Vietnam War, they might remember that he only "won" the Cuban Missile Crisis by agreeing to also withdraw our missiles from Turkey, etc. Instead all anyone remembers him for is the Apollo program (which also likely would have failed had it not been closely associated with JFK's memory), and banging Marylin Monroe. IOW, only the good stuff.

  • ||

    I hate to bring this up, but Ron Paul is more likely to attract a sniper than Mittens.

  • Loki||

    This, unfortunately. Statists are violent little fuckers.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    I'd love to see the reaction from the LewRockwell.com types if this happened.

  • Tonio||

    That alone would be worth it.

  • jacob||

    Ron Paul has been poisoned by the ZOG
    -Raimondo

  • Tonio||

    Heh. Nice.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    Umm. Ok. Here goes:

    Yay. Go Ron Paul.

    Sorry to disappoint.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I can see this as Romney's nightmare scenario.

    "Vice President Paul accuses President Romney of violating campaign promises"

    "Paul, as President of the Senate, rejects Republican procedural shanenigans to pass dubious Paul bill."

    "Vice President Paul calls Romney a lying sonafabitch: 'He promised me to audit the fed and cut the budget, that bastard!'"

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "dubious Romney bill"

  • John||

    Wouldn't happen. But yeah, my question has been answered. Libertarians are hopeless. They don't want to win. The point of being a libertarian is forever standing and losing on principle.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm simply predicting that a Vice President Paul would call Romney on any violation of campaign promises, etc.

  • ||

    Whether Obama wins or Romney wins, we lose. If Paul takes ANY of the blame for Romney's inevitable failure as a president, we lose. There is NO upside to voting for a Romney/Paul ticket.

  • Mo' $parky||

    They don't want to win. The point of being a libertarian is forever standing and losing on principle.

    Er, they DO want to win. And more importantly they want the principle to NOT be a losing one.

  • BenDFW||

    It is like wanting to win a football game by only kicking field goals and having absolutely no defense. They are convinced that they can win because the reality doesn't phase them that they can't stop thier opponents from running over them.

  • sarcasmic||

    The point of being a libertarian is forever standing and losing on principle.

    The point of being a Team Red/Blue is being able to say "I voted for a winner! Neener neener neener! Your guy lost! Loser!" for the small price of giving up all your principles (if you had any to start with).

  • jacob||

    if you had any to start with

    Kill shot

  • Zeb||

    The point of being a libertarian is forever standing and losing on principle.

    Not the point, but it may be a fact. The point is to complain about stuff on the internet.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    John, there are plenty of Libertarians who agree with you I think. Just don't feel the need to +1 everything you are saying here.

    I'll probably be voting for Rand. But if Ron or Rand are on the ticket, I'll be voting (R) in a heart beat.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    ^ Probably voting for Johnson, I meant to say.

  • Emperor Wears No Clothes||

    Libertarians are hopeless. They don't want to win. The point of being a libertarian is forever standing and losing on principle.

    Do I have to be the one who mentions how pragmatism is regarded as evil around here? Where are the standard-bearers today?

    My guess is that John is a realtor.

  • Tonio||

    I posted this idea at 1:03 on the other Paul thread. Dammit, Bart, stop stealing my ideas. However I do admire your turning that into a publishable piece in thirty minutes flat.

    Mug # 5, biotch. Fill it, or it's swirly time for you. Amanda has promised me that the staff will see nothing. They do have a dry towel waiting for you, though.

    /kidding

  • Tonio||

    Oops, you meant Ron, not Rand. My bad.

    /derp

  • Lord Humungus||

    Not going to happen /thread

  • sloopyinca||

    Banjos and I were having this conversation last night. She said, "what good would come of a Romney/Paul ticket?" I jokingly said, well, Romney could die while in office."

    My immediate instinct was to turn off my iPhone and look to the sky for murderdrones.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    VP's are political eunechs. Paul's balls wouldn't stand for that sort of castration.

  • Tonio||

    The ghost of Theodore Roosevelt would like a word with you, Clumsy Robot.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    Four words:
    Bucket of Warm Piss.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nance_Garner

  • BakedPenguin||

    Actually, if he helped stop FDR packing the Court, he achieved something worthwhile.

  • John||

    This won't happen. But if it did and Libertarians still didn't turn out in droves, why should Republicans ever pay attention to Libertarians again? If Libertarian votes can't be had through anything but complete surrender, no one is going to meet them half way and give them anything. If Paul were on a winning ticket and brought in huge numbers of voters, Republicans would have to pay attention to those voters. If Paul didn't bring any voters to the ticket, then there is no reason why Republicans shouldn't tell Libertarians to go fuck themselves.

  • Emperor Wears No Clothes||

    But if it did and Libertarians still didn't turn out in droves, why should Republicans ever pay attention to Libertarians again?

    True dat.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Very unlikely, of course, but it might get my vote. Still no likee Romney, but he'd move up some if he were to ask Paul to be his VP. And having a libertarian as VP could be a pretty important breakthrough for libertarian thought.

  • John||

    Yes it would be. But having that happen would mean compromising a little bit. And what fun is that? Better to stand on principle and never accomplish a single thing.

  • sarcasmic||

    To paraphrase Ayn Rand - In any compromise with evil, it is only evil that profits.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Seriously, if Johnson wins, he'll be compromising with evil even taking office in this hopeless corrupt system. That logic means we give up and head to the bunkers. I think that's premature.

  • sarcasmic||

    Seriously, if Johnson wins, I'll wok my dog.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that could happen or anything.

  • perlhaqr||

    Mr. President?

  • Paul.||

    And having a libertarian as VP could be a pretty important breakthrough for libertarian thought.

    I disagree. Having a libertarian VP would only force the libertarian VP to adopt the Romney model. VPs are Yes-men. They don't open their mouths without approval from the West Wing.

    Ron Paul might be able to guide policy in the background, but publicly, RP would be turned into Romney Light.

    Yes, libertarianism is a suicide pact.

    Never surrender.

  • John||

    VPs are Yes-men.

    No they are not. Cheney and Bush didn't get along. Reagan and Bush I didn't see eye to eye on a lot of things. Now the VP can't be out campaigning against the President. But the VP doesn't have to agree with the President.

    The VP is not appointed. He is elected. He can't be fired.

  • Paul.||

    No they are not. Cheney and Bush didn't get along. Reagan and Bush I didn't see eye to eye on a lot of things.

    It appears that you don't know what a yes-man is, John. It has nothing to do with whether or not they agree on something in the dim, distant background. It has to do with how they act. Cheney was absolutely a yes-man. Here's my good buddy Nick Gillespie riffing on Mr. Cheney from 2004:

    Far from being the Richelieu of latter-day America, Cheney is the ultimate organization man, an insecure yes man whose balls are so tightly in the vise that he's always struggling not break down and cry. -- Nick Gillespie

    http://reason.com/archives/200.....ick-cheney

  • John||

    Yeah because Gillespie knew so much about the inner workings of the Bush White House. And Cheney hated Rumsfeld and did a lot to shape policy under Bush. Cheney was not a yes man. And Gillespie was full of shit.

  • Paul.||

    Yeah because Gillespie knew so much about the inner workings of the Bush White House.

    And you do? Tell me where Bush's favored policy was directly undermined or reversed by Cheney? Tell me where Cheney was on a polar-opposite message from bush during the entire 8 years?

    Seriously, I'm open to be convinced otherwise, John, I just don't ever recall it.

  • John||

    Cheney was a big mover behind getting rid of Rumsfeld.

  • Mensan||

    "Tell me where Cheney was on a polar-opposite message from bush during the entire 8 years?"

    Gay marriage.

  • David Emami||

    Not commenting on the topic in general, but I find the idea that Cheney hated Rumsfeld to be unlikely. Rumsfeld was Cheney's mentor back in the 60's/70s, and Cheney was one of those who backed Rumsfeld for SecDef during Bush 2.0.

  • Paul.||

    Haven't RTFA yet, but this would be a bad idea for Paul.

    Becoming VP is like becoming the President's "yes man". And Ron Paul must not, if he's to retain any credibility, do that.

    Bad idea. I suggest Romney tap Sarah Palin.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's not always like that. Gore, supposedly, had some real substantive role during the Clinton years. Though I somehow doubt Romney would want that from Paul.

  • John||

    It wouldn't matter. A guy who wants to end the drug war would have been elected to national office. Think about that for a moment.

  • Paul.||

    It wouldn't matter. A guy who wants to end the drug war would have been elected to national office. Think about that for a moment.

    Remember, there's an unofficial drinking game here at HR where you... drink whenever a blog post comes up with a former head of something-something demanding and end to the war on drugs. Always former... never current. My guess is, if Paul became VP, the West Wing would tell him to STFU on drug war policy.

  • perlhaqr||

    Do you think he'd listen?

    Do you think the lefty media wouldn't publish every last bit of Ron Paul contradicting a sitting Republican President?

    I mean, what are they going to do? Lock him up without an internet connection?

  • sarcasmic||

    A guy who wants to end the drug war would have been elected to national office.

    Which is why he will not be selected to be on the ticket.

    That subject is taboo.

  • shamalam||

    "A guy who wants to end the drug war would have been elected to national office.'

    That is a good point. A Romney/Paul ticket would get my vote.

  • Paul.||

    Gore, supposedly, had some real substantive role during the Clinton years.

    I don't recall it, aside from some kind of remaking government initiative where he was on Letterman talking about some absurdities in government procurement or some such thing... when I used to watch that stuff.

    See what I posted above. Functionally, yes, I believe that he could tip some close-call policy decisions. But in the end, I predict we'd all end up just feeling disappointed with Paul. And as a disappointing Paul, I can't watch this play out.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Look, we have no voice at the table right now. With a VP, there's a voice, even if he's marginalized. And when Romney has to resign due to his revealed polygamy, then Paul is president.

  • Paul.||

    You've got something on the RP being a step away from the presidency. But the last time a VP took over for a failed president was Nixon. It's been a long time.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's not going to happen, anyway. Paul's got baggage or perceived baggage that Willard will want to avoid.

    If it does happen, it shows that he's got at least some fear/respect/whatever for the libertarians out there and that he, at least, doesn't see Paul as some scary zombie grandpa.

    Aside from that, the President of the Senate isn't totally without power, and Paul might get some policy wins, too.

    We're screwed anyway you cut it, but I'd rather have this scenario than another. Even if I personally ended up voting for Johnson, anyway.

    One issue, of course, is how much Paul as VP would be allowed to stay on his message during the campaign. If it's mostly, then that's a big deal, too.

  • Paul.||

    I could see a scenario where Romey could say, slip on some tea in a terrible accident, and Paul would then refuse to post the orders in the crew quarters.

    One issue, of course, is how much Paul as VP would be allowed to stay on his message during the campaign. If it's mostly, then that's a big deal, too.

    My prediction is that you'd see such a dramatic swing on his message, it would be disturbing to Paul fans.

    Think about what Paul talks about, now bullet point them and parallel them with the shit that Romney says on the same subjects. Yeah. Can you imagine Paul staying on Paul message alongside Romney?

  • David Emami||

    Perhaps, Mr. Clancy, but part of the idea behind putting Paul on the ticket is for him to act as a sort of libertarian zampolit within the administration, so it would be him slipping on the tea. :)

  • jacob||

    Well I'd tap Sarah Palin too

    (I keed, I keed)

    But seriously, I don't think she's a good choice for VP. There would be too many people turned off by her to justify it. Heck, I really don't give a shit about what she thinks after she endorsed Gingrich over Ron Paul (or, really, Gingrich over anyone).

  • Paul.||

    Romney is going to lose so tapping SP would be great comedy.

  • jacob||

    Great comedy, yeah, but as a libertarian I can't see how you don't feel the urge to support Romney over Obama, with or without Ron Paul.

  • Paul.||

    As a libertarian I feel the urge to support someone who believes in smaller government. See anyone on the ticket that's going to make an impact on that front?

    If Paul were actually tapped as VP for Romney... I might consider voting for Romney if Paul were selected VP. But I'd avert my eyes immediately after doing it.

  • sloopyinca||

    jacob, I feel the urge to support the dump I filled my toilet with this morning over Obama. That doesn't mean I'm going to vote for it.

    Jesus, you're another one of those, "I'm gonna vote against the guy I hate rather than for someone I support" guys, aren't you? Well, have fun selling your soul for more of the same.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Barring the very unlikely Paul scenario, I'm voting for Johnson. However, I do think Romney is going to win, with a fairly comfortable margin. Except for people who just don't think at all, the ineptitude and mendaciousness of this administration is just too much to accept, especially given our obvious problems. Romney may suck ass, but he didn't tell us a bunch of lies and double down on government intervention while the government continued to affirmatively damage our economy.

  • ||

    Just give him a chance! I'm sure Romney will do both of those things.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Oh, sure, I imagine that he will. But he has the advantage over Obama of not having done it yet. Anyone who votes for Obama now is seriously deficient in reason, logic, and self-preservation.

  • perlhaqr||

    That's like asking whether I support shooting myself in my left foot over my right foot.

  • ¿Ex Nihilo?||

    I suggest Romney tap Sarah Palin.

    I don't think Mrs. Romney would go for that, wrong branch of the LDS tree and all.

  • Loki||

    I suggest Romney tap Sarah Palin.

    I suggest he tap that too. Oh, wait you probably meant a different kind of "tap".

  • rac3rx||

  • jacob||

    As a die-hard Paul fan, I'm quite disappointed that John seems to be the only one in favor of this. How on earth could you not think this is good for libertarianism?

    And as far as Gary Johnson goes....look, I donated to his campaign, but there's no way in hell he's going to beat Obama.


    ROMNEY/PAUL 2012

    RAND PAUL 2016

  • ReformRealist||

    It isn't about Johnson winning. First, it's about getting over 5% in order to qualify for matching funds in future elections and possibly getting above 15% (only has to be done in polls, but hopefully in the election as well) in order to get into the debates and put pressure on the two main parties.

    Johnson's campaign should be about building momentum for electoral reform and libertarian ideas as well.

  • John||

    So Johnson can get 5% and get four times the number of electoral votes he got before.

  • ReformRealist||

    Please elaborate? My point is not that Johnson will necessarily run again himself, but rather that building momentum for certaian ideas is what is important.

  • jacob||

    I don't have anything against Johnson and I'd be tickled pink if he won. The point is that we've got a chance to knock Obama out of office and get a libertarian into the White House. How on earth could any libertarian not be behind this? I suppose if you are one of those "Ron-Paul-isn't-a-true-libertarian" types, then fine.

  • ReformRealist||

    What? I am more concerned about changing the electoral system then removing Obama from office and likely the only Libertarian available to be vote for in November will be Johnson.

    I highly doubt Ron Paul will be Romney's choice for VP.

  • jacob||

    OK, but the premise of my argument is what if Ron Paul is on the ticket. You seem to be resigned to the fact that he absolutely won't be.

  • ReformRealist||

    My point would be a Ron Paul Vice Presidency would not fix the problems inherent in our electoral system.

    It would make Romney more enticing, but I would still have to think long and hard.

  • RoninX||

    I would vote for Romney/Paul, if only because it would increase the prominence of the libertarian wing of the GOP for the long term. I think Romney/Paul is extremely unlikely to happen, because Paul would take principled positions that would conflict with Romney's ability to turn like windvane with the most recent poll results.

    In the most likely case that Paul is not on the GOP ticket, I will vote for Johnson.

  • Just Dropping By||

    Is the Richmond Times-Dispatch pumping aerosolized crack into their building's ventilation system? Even if Romney personally wanted to put Paul on the ticket, the Republican establishment would make him drop the idea first (see, e.g., McCain in 2008 being forced to drop his idea to nominate Lieberman as VP).

  • sarcasmic||

    (see, e.g., McCain in 2008 being forced to drop his idea to nominate Lieberman as VP)

    With that ticket he could have won. Not that it would have made a substantive difference.

  • Tonio||

    I see this more as filler, JDB. Or what essayists call "thought exercises." Snicker. Writers have to eat, after all. And drink.

  • SomebodySmart||

    I can just see all the RON PAUL FOR VICE PRESIDENT signs now.

  • ||

    I have a letter here in my hands from the Romney campaign begging for money. Romney claims he's "fiscally conservative" and can "streamline the government." Bull fucking shit. Until I see a serious plan from Romney to shut down 1/2 the federal government and cut a trillion or two from the federal budget, our ideas of fiscal conservatism are wildly different. I'm supposed to vote for the guy because he uses words he doesn't understand? Not gonna happen.

  • jacob||

    Well, let me pose it this way:

    Are you going to stand by and let Barack Obama get another 4 years? Will that promote liberty in America?

  • sarcasmic||

    What will Romney do that Obama wouldn't? Seriously.

    He might lower taxes a little, but he won't cut spending a whit.
    Foreign policy? No change.
    Repeal Obama care? Not a chance.

    Seriously, what's the difference?

  • ||

    I don't see how Obama winning will be any different from Romney winning. We won't get any liberty either way.

  • jacob||

    RE: Both of your comments

    If we take him at his word, I think he will repeal Obamacare. To not do so would be suicide for is '16 campaign. I also tend to believe he will be more fiscally responsible than Obama. I agree foreign policy/drug war will be no different.

  • sarcasmic||

    He can't do it by himself.
    Unless the Republicans control both the House and Senate, no such bill would reach his desk.
    Even if it did, remember that they want to replace it, not repeal it.

    I'm not sure which would be worse. Gridlock with Obama, or total Republican control.

  • jacob||

    Gridlock with Obama is not a bad idea, but why are you opposed to Gridlock with Romney?

  • sarcasmic||

    why are you opposed to Gridlock with Romney?

    I didn't say that I was, other than it would mean Obamacare for sure is not repealed (or replaced).

  • ||

    I think SCOTUS is going to handle ObamneyCare for us. If the democrats are in office, they'll bitch and moan, but not try any new shenanigans for a decade or so since this experience was so costly. If the republicans are running things, they'll vote some more sweet goodies for retirees and make the rest of us pay for it.

  • Red Pepper||

    If Romney had Paul as his VP, I would not only not vote for them, I would regret ever saying a kind word about Paul

  • ||

    So libertarianism and Ron Paul are all about independence and principles ... so why is it assumed by everyone here he would abandon both and become a "yes man" and agree to "do as he's told" if he was Vice President?

    Romney couldn't force him to not speak his mind if someone sticks a microphone in his face, and it's not like Romney can't know what he would be getting if he asked Paul

  • Red Pepper||

    If he did that then they wouldn't win anyway. Paul's continued honesty would make the Republican ticket be less united than Obama and Romney themselves.

  • commentard||

    I think libertarians would be well-served to accept the victory that has already been won through the Paul campaign - which is that scores of previously untapped voters ACTUALLY WANT TO LISTEN TO WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY, and precisely because of Ron Paul's historically consistent refusal to "compromise" when the result of said "compromise" is a lump of big-government bullshit. The folly of our system is only going to gradually reveal itself more than it has in the years to come. Discontent with the entire system IS more popular and enthusiastic than ever before, and it only stands to become even more so. Adherence to principle is only going to become more of an asset in elections, in my opinion.

    To assume that a R$/RP ticket would be a "victory" for libertarianism is to assume that a Romney administration would actually improve things in this country, rather than gradually pissing everyone off over the course of a term. I, for one, am not that hopeful. We need to continue to cling to our status as a clear alternative, and let the big-government assholes turn more and more people in our direction - as has happened over the course of the last decade.

  • LibertyMark||

    I despise Romney, and I have earlier said "Ron Paul or no one", but I would vote for the ticket if Paul was the VP.

    I'm actually agreeing with much of what John is saying on this thread.

    For years in Florida, and then lesser in Texas, I worked within the LP.

    I have decided that the LP is structurally excluded from being a serious competitor, and that it is a better strategy to try to reform the Republicans from within. It amazes me how much Ron Paul has accomplished here. I have hope that this bottom-up reform might continue.

    In order for our principles to have a better chance of electoral success, they must be as "mainstreamed" as possible. Mind you, I'm not talking about watering them down. I'm talking about getting subsets of our hard-core principles out there, and realizing that we can't get them all at once.

    Just like Ron Paul's "radical" budget plan. It barely touchs entitlements, even though those are unconstitutional, destructive monsters. It lets the very young opt out. A good place to start.

  • Red Pepper||

    I'm for reforming the Repubs as well but voting for Romney would be voting against that reform regardless of who's VP.

  • Drake||

    I think the quote is "The Perfect Is the Enemy of the Good."

    I would love to see the Republicans become a truly fiscally conservative, socially neutral. I would love to see them actually shrink the government, not just try to slow-grow it.

    Ron Paul obviously has the same hopes.

  • rogerfgay||

    OH MY! A stupid Romney campaign propaganda piece in Reason? I'm shocked.

  • rogerfgay||

    Breaking: Romney Has Officially Dropped Out!
    http://www.libertarian-examine.....opped.html

  • BlueBook||

    Surely I'm not the only one who remembers the Redford-Pitt combo Spy Game? Not a bad flick, IMHO; the romance was overdone but the action and suspense were mostly good. Harry Gregson-Williams soundtrack was memorable.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I get how Romney benefits, in terms of getting access to Paul's exhuberant followers, and helping defusing Gary Johnson. But how does Paul benefit? The VP has no real power, so it's not like it gets him any actual influence over how the country is governed. It seems to me it's just an excuse for the Republican party to pretend that big government conservatism is really libertarian. So all it does it get us stuck with the blame for Romney's failure.

    Responsibility without any control is something to avoid, not to pursue.

  • terrymac||

    To get Paul on board, Romney would probably have to pledge to spend the rest of the campaign talking about issues which really do matter - the very least would be cutting the budget by $1 trillion, or something similar, the first year. He'd have to pledge to follow up on that commitment. He might even have to reverse himself on the empire-building plans to bomb Iran, etc. This might be a difficult pill to swallow.

    Assume that Romney wants the Oval Office bad enough to make those concessions.

    Now, what would Paul bring? A very large army of voters who would otherwise either stay home or vote for Gary Johnson, that's what. This would probably tip the vote in more than a few states.

  • BenDFW||

    THe truth: If Ron Paul were a part of the administration in any role other than Treasury Secretary, he would not talk about the easily understandable issues such as over regulation, tax policy, or deficit spending. He would instead lament on and on ad nauseum about the important, but boooooooring, federal reserve. The guy wastes a lot of his campaign on unpopular stuff. It has conveinced me that he is really into this to raise money and not to actually win.

  • David Emami||

    If Ron Paul took part in a hypothetical Romney administration, he'd do the most good and compromise his principles the least as a cabinet secretary of one of the departments he wants to eliminate -- the Department of the Interior, for instance. He can try carving out the massive bloat. If the bureaucracy cooperates, he can chainsaw it down to the point asking "does what's left really need its own department?" If they resist, he can point to that as well as the festering messes he'll have cataloged, and say "it can't be reformed, kill it" in a way more people would listen to.

  • Penis Carrot||

    If you vote for a Romney/Paul ticket on the hopes you're going to get Paul's policies, well, that and five bucks gets you a latte at starbucks.

  • Bill||

    I agree with John on this one, sloopy.

    If Paul was on the ticket it would expose voters to some new ideas for the first time. They rarely let him talk in the debates. He would likely clean up in a debate with Biden.

    And he might just be able to get Romney to agree to one or two important things. Not sure if that would be minor concessions in the war on drugs like leaving states alone on medical MJ, or getting Romney to agree to cut military spending by 4% instead of increasing it.

    Or maybe transparency for FED or getting rid of a few of Obamas civil liberties encroachments with Patriot Act. Would not be hard to work Repubs. into a frenzy over Obama being a busy-body.

    My fear is that a Repub. victory followed by all of our economic chickens coming home to roost would be blamed on free market, austerity, etc. and w/ Paul on ticket, it would also be all of the libertarian policies fault even if none were adopted. Might be best to let Obama win, destroy the economy, and rebuild from the ashes.

  • Snakebit||

    VP Ron Paul? Oh hell no!!!!!

  • sweeterjan||

    From Romney’s perspective, there are http://www.vendreshox.com/nike-shox-r6-c-11.html naturally some downsides. Paul comes from a reliably Republican state, so unlike Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida or Rob Portman of Ohio—or

  • Stephdumas||

    United Liberty had posted an article from late March about a Romney-Paul alliance http://www.unitedliberty.org/a.....l-alliance

  • some guy666||

    One racist guy and the other part of a racist religious organization, Oh wait, their leader got a phone call from god and said its ok to let the black people in the church. AWESOME!!! Next presidential election we will then have the Skinhead party.

  • johnd2||

    This guy must have the best drugs on the planet. Please send me your pushers email.

  • John C. Randolph||

    I would only vote for a Romney/Paul ticket if I had reliable information that Romney would drop dead from an aneurysm as he took the oath of office.

    -jcr

  • michaeljackson90||

    really nice and informative news i really appreciate your efforts and all these acne get pimples rid, pimples on back

  • michaeljackson90||

    but one thing remain both have great look like back spot spots on chest

  • JayJayTheTooth||

    Point 1: Mittens is more likely to pick Rand Paul than he is to pick Ron Paul. Rand Paul is more likely to accept the nod than Ron Paul would be. And we Paulbots tend not to trust Rand much. He's totally unproven on civil liberties, and he talks like a neocon.

    Point 2: I spent the weekend at the MN GOP state convention. The majority of the folks I talked to will be voting for Gary Johnson in November. I will vote for GJ even if Ron Paul were on the ticket...that would just show me he's a sell-out.

    Point 3: Ron Paul won't be on the ticket. It would be suicidal for both sides.

  • coma44||

    That would be ok, but I doubt it will happen.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement