Politics

Why Rand Paul Shouldn't Be Romney's Running Mate

|

Vices are not crimes. —L. Spooner

As Brian Doherty mentioned here on Hit & Run yesterday, Mitt Romney and Rand Paul had a half-hour meeting recently, fueling rumors that the GOP frontrunner might pick the Kentucky senator as his vice presidential candidate. Like Brian, I don't think this marriage is likely to happen. But if it is a possibility, why would any libertarian want it to happen?

My problem here isn't with Sen. Paul himself—I've certainly got my disagreements with the man, but I like him much better than anyone else whose name is being kicked around as a potential Romney running mate. The problem is the idea that it would be good to take the guy out of his Senate seat, where he's well-positioned to battle actual bad legislation, and stick him in a job where he'll be expected to suppress his disagreements with his boss and serve as a public face of the Romney administration.

We're in our fourth year of a president who the left is reluctant to rebel against even when he abuses their alleged principles. Before that we had eight years of a president who the right was reluctant to rebel against even when he abused their alleged principles. With Romney we finally have the possibility of a president both the left and the right can hate: a man who may be inclined to continue the worst Bush/Obama policies, but who at least will be easier to organize against. I'd rather have Rand Paul leading the right flank of the anti-Romney revolt than being used to keep the remnants of the Tea Party movement in line.

So please don't pick Paul, Gov. Romney. Pick a party hack, a Joe Biden of the right: a living reminder to the angry grassroots that they do not and should not trust you.

NEXT: Schilling Shifts from Video Games to Blame Game in Rhode Island Loan Disaster

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.

  1. Rand Paul could always say “no”.

    1. Actually, the ideal outcome might be that Paul says “Yes” but Romney loses. Then Paul gets to preach liberty on national TV for a few months, but doesn’t lose his senate seat.

  2. Before that we had eight years of a president who the right was reluctant to rebel against even when he abused their alleged principles.

    Yet they ultimately did, most famously against the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination. Has there a been an equivalent uprising against Obama from the progressive wing of the Democrats? I can’t think of one if there has. They are largely content with a diet of rhetorical devices.

    1. Progressives hate Obama for:

      the individual mandate
      not stringing up the bankers on meat-hooks
      Afghanistan
      not prosecuting Bush/Cheney

      1. Hate as in won’t vote for? See, I don’t vote for people I hate.

        1. We never got to test that with Bush and the right. Had he been allowed to run for a 3rd term I guarantee most conservatives would still have voted for him over BO.

          1. In a choice between Bush and Obama… I’d have put my .45 caliber handgun to my temple and pulled the trigger. Either that or become an alcoholic.

            Hell, I still may. There’s a reason why I never drink just one beer. Actually, there’s 2: Republicans and Democrats.

            1. For presidential races, I vote for an obscure political party called the Libertarian Party.

            2. You have a choice, use it. Gary Johnson.

    2. The right rebelled against comprehensive immigration reform as well.

  3. I have a cunning plan. Romney should tap Joe Biden.

    1. Romney and Obama should pick each other, and at the debates they should just make out.

      1. Then gay marry! Perfect! Let the healing begin.

      2. Hmm…

        1. They gay marry, then the parties gay marry!

          1. I thought they were already married. They’ve been together so long all they do is hatefuck each other. It’s that what marriage is really all about anyway?

            1. No, it was just a civil union. If they marry, the Democrats will take the Republicans’ name. Fat Elephant Party.

              1. I thought it was a common law marriage. They’ve acted like bickering spouses for so long…

                1. Not under the laws of our country. Technically speaking, the parties are composed of millions of individuals, which, if we allowed them to marry, would be polygamy. That used to be illegal, but now that Obama has freed the gays, there’s really no legal justification for not allowing it. So the parties can, finally, marry.

                  1. Your legal mumbo-jumbo grows tedious.

                    All I care about is Barry and Mitt 69ing while Wolf Blitzer furiously masturbates with Gwen Ifill’s denuded femur.

                    1. Your depravity knows no bounds.

                    2. “I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space–were it not that I have wet dreams.”

                    3. There’s not enough brain bleach in the world to get that image out of my head. Thanks…

                  2. “Obama has freed the gays”

                    The Gay Fornication Proclamation

      3. That would ensure nobody would tune in to the debates.

      4. That was the way the Founders intended the VP slot to be filled.

      5. I would prefer this to seeing Rand Paul run as VP. Also, lol.

  4. This is why Libertarians will always be losers. You have to be willing to settle for incremental gains. If you’re not willing to get someone who is sympathetic to your cause into a position where they might be able to push your message then you might as well give up hope of ever getting anywhere.

    Right John?

    1. You have to be willing to settle for incremental gains.

      Actually John is right here. As long as you move towards freedom and individual rights, there is nothing wrong with incrementalism.

      Stand firm on your principles and move towards them, one step at a time.

      1. But that’s not what compromise is. You have to give something to get something.

        The question is, are you prepared to sacrifice something that your opponents think you want in order to secure something else that you think is more important?

        1. The question is, are you prepared to sacrifice something that your opponents think you want in order to secure something else that you think is more important?

          I guess it would depend what it is. Compromise is hard (one reason most won’t do it) but sometimes you have to hold your nose to move towards your goal.

    2. We’ve got someone sympathetic to our cause in a position where he might be able to push our message. Jesse is arguing that he should stay there.

      1. I think he can do more good as a senator rather than as a vice-president. He has more power there, unless something happens to the pres.

        1. He would have a tiebreaker vote – if the vote would have been the same anyway he wouldn’t have a vote, but what practical significance would that be?

          As VP, he would be able to make rulings on the procedural shenanigans each party tries to pull. He could make headlines by rejecting some parliamentary trick backed by the Reps. It’s not as if Romney could fire him, since his 4-yr term is as secure as Romney’s.

          And if Romeny offers a bad bill, VP Rand could lead a rebellion of the Tea Partiers – if that doesn’t get Romney’s attention, nothing would.

          Of course, these are all reasons Romney probably *doesn’t* want Rand as VP. Or why he will probably be offering humiliating conditions for the VP post.

          1. He would have a tiebreaker vote – if the vote would have been the same anyway he wouldn’t have a vote, but what practical significance would that be?

            No practical significance really. We haven’t had a tie vote in some time.

            And if Romeny offers a bad bill, VP Rand could lead a rebellion of the Tea Partiers – if that doesn’t get Romney’s attention, nothing would.

            He can do that more effectively from the Senate. Plus he can filibuster and put bills on hold, as well as introducing amendments to bills. Plus leading a rebellion of Tea Partiers.

            1. “He can do that more effectively from the Senate”

              The VP is ex officio President of the Senate. He can reinvent the position of VP. He can encourage his Senate allies to put holds, etc.

              If Romney is foolish enough to offer him the Veep spot, he can innocently say, “OK, so long as I reserve the right to speak up in favor of the Republican platform.” So if Romney violates the (Ron Paul influenced) platform, Rand can be the canary in the coal mine to show the whole country how R-man is violating his own party’s principles.

              1. And if Romney refuses to make such a concession, then voters can accurately say, “Gosh, I suppose Romney wants to reserve the right to violate his own platform!” Awkward.

                1. And if Romney refuses to make such a concession, then voters can accurately say, “Gosh, I suppose Romney wants to reserve the right to violate his own platform!” Awkward.

                  I don’t think the voters would care. He can always claim a change in the situation for whatever platform he is violating. The blues will support him and the reds will scream about it. But they will do that anyway.

              2. And if he wants to reserve the right to defend Mitt’s own platform, and Mitt balks at that condition, then voters can conclude: “Ah, I suppose Romney wants to be able to violate his own platform without being called to account.”

              3. The VP is ex officio President of the Senate. He can reinvent the position of VP. He can encourage his Senate allies to put holds, etc.

                Yes he is, but I would worry about how many (R) senators would buck the Pres. for the V-Pres.

                1. There would be a better chance of them bucking the Pres for the VP than bucking the Pres for some Kentucky Senator.

                  And there’s absolutely nothing to stop Vice President Rand from schmoozing with his colleagues, spreading principles of liberty, going on television to explain how he’s trying to pull Romney away from his bad advisors, etc. I mean, what is Romney going to do, fire him?

                  And the Veep customarily hangs out with the Cabinet. If Mittens cuts him out of the Cabinet, that will be the occasion for more headlines (“Romney administration snubs its most prominent Tea Party supporter”)

                  Having Rand as VP would be more a nightmare for Mittens than Rand, so I expect the former won’t consider it.

                  1. There would be a better chance of them bucking the Pres for the VP than bucking the Pres for some Kentucky Senator.

                    If it is the KY Senator doing the bucking, he doesn’t have to worry about the choice. And one Senator has a lot of power.

                    If Mittens cuts him out of the Cabinet, that will be the occasion for more headlines…

                    I don’t know, how often do you hear about the VP now?

                    Having Rand as VP would be more a nightmare for Mittens than Rand, so I expect the former won’t consider it.

                    I agree totally. I don’t think either would consider it.

    3. Well, when you have a the political right asking for just a little more govt to solve problems, and the political left wants a lot more, they compromise on a medium amount more.

      I would rather keep the status quo/gridlock and allow society to find our own solutions to problems, and allow the federal government to spiral into a meaningless group of letter-writers, much like the UN.

    4. Romney could always be assassinated, but I assume any would-be assassin would get bored planning any attack on that milquetoast fuck and go find someone more interesting to kill.

  5. Okay, so who is the Joe Biden of the right?

    1. Newt Gingrich.

    2. Shitty hair, thinks he’s hilarious, doesn’t understand why so many people hate him, and spews gaffes like machinegun fire: Donald Trump

      1. + plugs

      2. I realize you’re joking, but God no. If Romney pick Trump, by the time the election finally mercifully ends I’ll have stabbed my eyes out and shoved sharp sticks into my eardrums if it means never having to see or hear another word from that class warfare spewing ass-wipe Obama again.

        He’s already cranked the class warfare/ culture war talking points generator up to 10, I’d hate to see what happens when it hits 11.

    3. I’m telling you, it’s Joe Biden himself. He should be named Vice President for Life.

      1. I have to admit that Biden is an immense improvement over Cheney. Cheney actually made the VP something other than meaningless, and Biden has returned the position to its former meaninglessness.

        1. He’s constantly on the news, or maybe that’s just a PA thing. He mans the dummy pulpit of the Veepicy as well as anyone I’ve seen, though.

  6. “So please don’t pick Paul, Gov. Romney. Pick a party hack, a Joe Biden of the right”

    Not possible as Barney the Dog has retired from politics.

  7. The one positive here is that it might set Rand up for a future presidential run better than him staying as an agitator and gadfly in the Senate.

  8. I strongly doubt Paul would be the VP pick. I’m pretty sure it will probably be Rubio or maybe Christie or Daniels if they’d run. He’s going to make plenty of public overtures to keep Ron from endorsing Johnson and to show Paul’s supporters he cares about keeping their votes. Can’t lose.

    But I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Romney promises Rand a nomination for HHS; Secretary. And that would be one of few positions he has occupational expertise in and would be mostly in lockstep with the GOP, benefitting Romney without him having to listen to his dissent on other areas. Plus, they get him out of the Senate and can get another Republican in there who will fall in line better.

    Hope Rand wouldn’t do it, but it would be tempting and beneficial to all parties involved.

    1. I’d like to see Daniels as the VP pick only so that he gets more national attention. He isn’t perfect, but he’s probably the best candidate that Republicans would firmly get behind.

      1. Meaning for a future presidential run.

        1. A guy I know offered his opinion that it would be Condi Rice.

          At first I was dismissive, but it kind of balances out a lot of his weaker areas.

          1. That’s interesting. The three big claims I’ve heard against him is that he throws fiscal sense out the window when foreign policy comes up (mostly OMB stuff), he’s stiff on immigration, and he’s boring. I can see how Condi would help the third, and I don’t know enough about her with regard to the first two.

            Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie shouldn’t be as popular with conservatives as they are. It isn’t that Daniels is out of line, he just seems to always be on the edge of what conservatives deem acceptable. I feel the same way about Rand Paul, though he maybe goes further than many would like.

  9. Paris Hilton. I’d love to see Romney pick Paris Hilton.

    See, Romney is sort of one-sided. He’s a strait-laced Mormon, a father, with a long, solid marriage. While he didn’t grow up poor, he has earned his fortune. He’s intelligent and mature.

    Paris Hilton would be the perfect counterpart for all these things.

    1. Kardashian/Hilton 2016!

      1. Two sluts, three buts.

        1. I think that ticket would finally make inroads with the black population, if you know what I mean, and I think SugarFree does.

  10. Sometimes you really do have to jsut go hit it up man Wow.

    http://www.Anon-Soft.tk

  11. I am glad I missed this thread, it’s so useless. Rand is not going to be VP. The establishment would never allow it even if Romney wanted to do it.

    Romney met with Rand to beg him to get his old man into line. That isn’t going anywhere either.

    Romney will have a hard time winning without Ron Paul supporters. There is no way he can get them. If he preached Libertarian fire and brimstone from the stage at the convention, no one would believe a word of it.

    Just vote for Johnson. When Romney loses, watch the neocons freak out. Well, we told you so, you retarded fucktards.

  12. While you raise a good point why rand Paul should not be Romeny’s running mate, they reason you should want him to be is still far more important. A VP position unless you are algore, is a stepping stone directly into the whitehouse. It means a libertarian president in 8 years, perhaps less.

  13. Think Rubio also has a “birther” problem so don’t think he would be eligible.

  14. If Mitch Daniels ends up as Mitt’s VP it will make sense why he was invited to the Bilderbergers this weekend! I rather hope Mitt chooses some Establishment big-govt type to be his running mate, like Jeb Bush (that’s all we need, another Bush!). And I loved how Mitt repudiated Ron Paul’s proposal to cut $1 trillion from the budget. Mitt says he’s NOT going to do that, and I’d bet if Mitt is elected he will just make Obama’s current level of spending the new status quo.
    I’m a registered Repubican and I’m voting for Gary Johnson. When Repubs run big-govt candidates like Dole, McCain and Romney, they deserve to LOSE.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.