The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Two Reasons VP Rand Paul Isn’t A Bad Idea

Posted on | March 16, 2012 | 48 Comments

by Smitty

Bill Quick floats an intriguing question:

So, tell me….would putting Rand Paul on his ticket as Veep make Mittens Romneycare more attractive to you?
Why?

As a preliminary note, The Catholic Bandita was attacked rather heavily by Ron/Rand supporters. I hope we can all get along better going down the road, and she can locate a means of forgiving loutish behavior. So, I offer these points knowing that Lisa’s jaw will tighten.

  • A Vice President Paul is a signal that Mitt isn’t simply a tool of the plutocrats, a Massachusetts Manchurian sent to proudly repeal ObamaCare, then re-instate it with altered acronyms. That Mitt has taken pretty much every side on every issue, and continues to spout Newspeak slogans in place of real communication is worrisome. Seriously. You may not like Newt or Rick or Ron, but when they’re talking, you know they are in the room. Mitt has sounded phoned in Every. Single. Time. Even Mitt’s wife sounds more authentic than he does. While I do not advocate alcohol consumption, I confess an academic interest in hearing Mitt after a couple of shots of tequila, purely to satisfy the question of whether there is any ‘there’ there. Does he play cards? Does he collect memorabilia? Paint? Anything? Bueller? I feel I know something of the remaining candidates. Mitt is opaque.
  • Rand Paul is about the second best choice after Marco Rubio, and for the same reason: conservatives should be thinking a 16-year package here. “Whaddaya Know” Joe Biden couldn’t lead two nuns in one minute of silent prayer, much less (hypothetically and God forbid) succeed #OccupyResoluteDesk in a 2016 run. Having Bush41 on his ticket might have been a necessary evil for Ronald Reagan, but the lack of continuity on the path toward restoring liberty after the Gipper helped put us where we are today. Implicit here is the idea that the Tea Parties have both got to support the GOP nominee and keep the pressure for reform continuously applied.

Thus Rand Paul would be workable for any of the candidates. I say that with no expectation of Ron taking the nom. A father/son ticket? The Democ**ts would reply with Hillary/Chelsea, no doubt. [Howls of derisive laughter.]

Update: welcome, Instapundit readers!

Update II: Rhetorican links.

Category: Mitt Romney, Rand Paul

Comments

48 Responses to “Two Reasons VP Rand Paul Isn’t A Bad Idea”

  1. Adjoran
    March 16th, 2012 @ 2:52 pm

    Rand Paul is completely unqualified to be President, and putting him on a ticket would be a disaster.

  2. richard mcenroe
    March 16th, 2012 @ 3:04 pm

    Some material reasons Ran Paul would be a bad pick for VP.

    1) NO MORE DYNASTIES.  Political families regardless of party are the death of a constitutional republic, on a par with an unelected and unfireable bureaucracy.  No more Bushes, Kennedies, Gores, Bidens, Daleys, Cuomos, Pauls or Mikulskis.  NO MORE. PERIOD.

    2) He’s a Paul.  This is a political family that has made its bones talking one way and acting another. Crazy Uncle rants and raves against earmarks and government spending til dogs start howling in the EU, but he squeezes those same earmarks out for his’n until the electoral udder blows dust.  Now it’s possible Rand is different.  It’s possible he’s a principled fiscal conservative.  It’s also possible he’s another Albert Bell Gore, stroking his daddy’s electorate until it’s time to reveal his true colors and dump them for a bigger, better deal.

  3. rosalie
    March 16th, 2012 @ 3:07 pm

    I’ll take Adjoran’s word for Rand Paul.  I don’t know much about him.  I’ve heard Christie’s name mentioned for VP, but I think he’d be terrible.  Since Romney’s only severely Conservative in his own mind,  I think he needs someone who really is a Conservative to balance the ticket.  

  4. smitty
    March 16th, 2012 @ 3:14 pm

    I would allow that you could argue Rand is unqualified, but when you throw ‘completely’ on there as a modifier, you blow your leg off with the hyperbole pistol.

  5. Ed Rasimus
    March 16th, 2012 @ 3:31 pm

    Rand has all the experience that qualified Obama for the Presidency except for the state legislature and he carries the additional benefit of espousing an equally extreme ideology as the Bamster. Win-win…for the bad guys. 

  6. smitty
    March 16th, 2012 @ 3:39 pm

    The word ‘extreme’, unexpectedly, is having the meaning crushed out of it in our propaganda-laden day.
    I’ve never heard Rand Paul espouse anything other than the U.S. Constitution. Rand is like his dad without the newsletter and foreign policy baggage, i.e., a genuinely interesting public figure.

  7. GAHCindy
    March 16th, 2012 @ 3:42 pm

    That all sounds really lovely, but what makes you think the Mittens  campaign would be any more capable of leveraging Rand Paul’s appeal than that McCain campaign was when they had Sarah Palin? They’d just stand around hemming and hawing with embarrassment about Paul’s conservative/libertarian streak. Won’t work.

  8. Taxpayer1234
    March 16th, 2012 @ 3:56 pm

    Well, it WOULD be a way to shut up the tinfoil hat brigade.  But that’s the only advantage I see.  Besides, I don’t think Mittens would pick anyone better-looking than he.  So Rand is out.

  9. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    March 16th, 2012 @ 4:09 pm

    There would be risks with a Rand Paul Veep nomination.  But trying to Palinize Paul would be very dangerous for the Dems.  So I do not see the disaster scenario the say way Adjoran does.  

    But here are why I do not see it.  We need the Senate,  and would be be guaranteed a Republican if Paul became Veep?  I am not sure the rules in Kentucky.  And I agree that Rubio is a better choice for Veep than Paul. 

    I would rather see Ron Paul or someone Ron Paul likes go to some sort of cabinet or fiscal cutting position.  There are a lot of different ways to support a president other than VP.  

  10. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    March 16th, 2012 @ 4:10 pm

    Rand Paul is not an extremist.  I agree with Smitty on that.  Rand Paul has a bright future and I could see him running for president one day…just not yet.  

  11. Tennwriter
    March 16th, 2012 @ 4:19 pm

    Probably right, and I doubt he has the skills or experience that Sarah had.

    At this point, if Mittens Romneycare wants my vote, he’s going to have go even larger than McCain did.  Like list every one of his cabinet appt. and they’re all stone cold conservatives.

  12. Tennwriter
    March 16th, 2012 @ 4:20 pm

    Dynasties are bad is right.  Not a good thing in general.

  13. Instapundit » Blog Archive » SO I’VE BEEN READING ABOUTH RUMORS OF A MITT ROMNEY/RON PAUL ALLIANCE, and I was thinking of doing a…
    March 16th, 2012 @ 4:20 pm

    […] SO I’VE BEEN READING ABOUTH RUMORS OF A MITT ROMNEY/RON PAUL ALLIANCE, and I was thinking of doing a post saying that while Ron Paul is probably a non-starter, Rand Paul looks a lot better: He’s a Senator, not a Representative, he doesn’t have the crazy-uncle demeanor, he doesn’t have Ron Paul’s isolationist views, etc. But before I could write that post, I saw this from Bill Quick. More here. […]

  14. smitty
    March 16th, 2012 @ 4:34 pm

    I’m challenged to view a Rep. from TX and a Senator from KY as a ‘dynasty’.

  15. Jim
    March 16th, 2012 @ 4:46 pm

    His handlers would never allow it. 

  16. TOM: Romney/Paul 2012? Two reasons why it’s not a bad idea. « The Rhetorican
    March 16th, 2012 @ 4:47 pm

    […] TOM: Romney/Paul 2012? Two reasons why it’s not a bad idea.TOM: Romney/Paul 2012?  Two reasons why it’s not a bad idea. […]

  17. Notapalinfan
    March 16th, 2012 @ 4:55 pm

    If he can dress himself and walk across the street without being hit, he has the skills Palin has.

  18. rec_lutheran
    March 16th, 2012 @ 4:55 pm

    Call it a “dynasty wannabe” or a “proto-dynasty”.

  19. MaggieW65
    March 16th, 2012 @ 5:00 pm

    Rubio is not qualified to sit as VP or President.  He’s not NB.

  20. FredAstaire
    March 16th, 2012 @ 5:06 pm

    Y’all ain’t taken into account a few people.
    I can see that the MSM is trying to pick a Republican candidate for us again.
    I’m not completely convinced it’s gonna work this time.

  21. Ruprecht67
    March 16th, 2012 @ 5:13 pm

    Isn’t there someone with experience for the vp slot? We should stop raiding the farm system and allow folks to season a bit before throwing them into the big game.

  22. Mwalimu_Daudi
    March 16th, 2012 @ 5:16 pm

    Remember after getting the GOP nomination, Rand Paul stupidly agreed to a interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddows (that alone should have disqualified him from office). In the interview Rand Paul went off on a long rant about some obscure point concerning civil rights legislation. Maddows gleefully took Paul’s rambling answer as an opportunity to smear him as a racist. Had 2010 not been so
    favorable for the GOP, and had the MSM/DNC not cooked up the now debunked kidnapping story and overplayed their hand with the “aqua Buddha” issue, it is quite possible that Paul would have lost.

    Both Papa and Baby Paul are undisciplined candidates that tend to get sidetracked on minutiae and side issues.

  23. JWE
    March 16th, 2012 @ 5:23 pm

    And the I.R.S. has no jurisdiction outside the District of Columbia, so you don’t have to pay your income tax unless you live in D.C.

    (Oh, and that thing about the U.C.C. and taxes, too)

  24. Ruprecht67
    March 16th, 2012 @ 5:24 pm

    Personally I’d like Condi as she would add comfusion to the Dems identity politics and she could argue circles around Biden and give much needed foreign policy gravitas to the ticket.

    I don’t think she pulls in a state or region but she has experience in how things are run in the executive branch. Any real complaints about her foreign policy work during the W years was diffused when Obamas folks copied those same decisions.

  25. smitty
    March 16th, 2012 @ 5:26 pm

    Wikipedia says he was born in Miami, though.

  26. kcs
    March 16th, 2012 @ 5:38 pm

    The current occupant of the White House proves that nobody “is completely unqualified to be President”.

  27. Jeremy Zharkov
    March 16th, 2012 @ 5:40 pm

    That “can’t we all get along” comment is laughable.  Big government, pro war Republicans have been attacking the Pauls virtually non-stop.  (See the comments to this piece)

    But it’s only a problem when they push back against big government, nation building, foreign interventionist types?

  28. Bob Belvedere
    March 16th, 2012 @ 6:28 pm

    Also, we need more time to vet Paul The Younger more.  We hardly know the guy and whether we can trust him.

  29. Rich K
    March 16th, 2012 @ 6:39 pm

    Its funny how many people still make that claim of ‘Not Ready’ with “Chauncey Gardner ” in the white house.

  30. MichaelKennedy
    March 16th, 2012 @ 6:44 pm

    I think you mean Obama. Palin, for example, knows how many states there are and she may even know who Rutherford B Hayes was.

  31. Tennwriter
    March 16th, 2012 @ 7:39 pm

    Mr. Kennedy, you’re being polite to the troll.

    NAPF, grownups are talking. Shhhhh.

  32. richard mcenroe
    March 16th, 2012 @ 7:54 pm

     And my concern is the Rands can ‘t tell the Sabine from the Rubicon.

  33. richard mcenroe
    March 16th, 2012 @ 7:55 pm

     Remember when Al Gore was a conservative Congressman?  We won’t know we can’t trust Rand until he screws us.

  34. ThePaganTemple
    March 16th, 2012 @ 8:53 pm

     Kentucky has a Democrat Governor, Steve Beshear, who would appoint his successor for, I think, the remainder of that term, which would have four years to go. Personally, I’d like to see Bunning return.

  35. ThePaganTemple
    March 16th, 2012 @ 9:00 pm

    Romney would never pick him, but West would be the best choice for VP out of any of the candidates currently mentioned, or anybody else I can think of, as VP for any of the candidates. If only the professionals would stay off his ass and let him be himself.

  36. Charles
    March 16th, 2012 @ 9:44 pm

    Rand Paul is more qualified to be VP than Joe Biden, Al Gore, Walter Mondale, or Hubert Humphrey.

    On the question of conservative feelings on repeal of Obamacare, what if Romney promised to make Dr. Rand Paul Secretary of Health and Human Services?

    Kathleen Sebelius, meet your replacement.

  37. Rich
    March 16th, 2012 @ 9:47 pm

    I’m inclined to like Rand Paul, but I’d need to know a lot more about him first rather than repeat the surprise VP pick thing.

  38. Charles
    March 16th, 2012 @ 9:49 pm

    You’re thinking of Senator Al Gore, Sr.? Al Gore, Jr. was never conservative.

  39. Thane_Eichenauer
    March 17th, 2012 @ 3:27 am

    I don’t see anybody getting about HHS Secretary Rand Paul. 

  40. Thane_Eichenauer
    March 17th, 2012 @ 3:31 am

    I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!”

  41. SDN
    March 17th, 2012 @ 8:47 am

     Actually, HHS Secretary Rand Paul might be a better signal on ORomneycare than VP Rand Paul, IF we could believe that President ORomney would go to the mat on backing him when he put real teeth in not enforcing the law until repeal by not proposing the regulations and instantly firing any lower level bureaucrat, civil service rules or no, who did.

    IF.

  42. SDN
    March 17th, 2012 @ 8:50 am

     Don’t you mean Vice President on the yet?

  43. SDN
    March 17th, 2012 @ 8:53 am

     NAPF brings to mind Brigham Young’s view on children:

    Bad children are like good intentions: they should be carried out.

  44. SDN
    March 17th, 2012 @ 8:56 am

     Ron Paul is crazier than a shithouse rat; Rand either didn’t inherit the gene or has better meds.

  45. The Camp Of The Saints
    March 17th, 2012 @ 4:19 pm

    The Spot-On Quote Of The Day……

    …is awarded to Smitty for getting to the nub of the main problem many of us have with Willard Mitt Romney: …That Mitt has taken pretty much every side on every issue, and continues to spout Newspeak slogans in place of real communication is…

  46. Thane_Eichenauer
    March 18th, 2012 @ 4:13 am

    If I thought ObamaCare was the most important issue I would agree with you.  I think foreign policy and auditing the Federal Reserve trump lesser issues.  If Romney wants to bury ObamaCare he has a number of state Attorney Generals that sued to invalidate ObamaCare that could do just as good a job as Rand (maybe even better).

  47. SDN
    March 18th, 2012 @ 7:28 am

     ORomneycare is a symptom; the disease is belief in Big Government. Unfortunately, none of the candidates is a good example of resisting effectively; only Romney has  recent executive experience showing he’ll govern like Obama to go with his policy proposals.

  48. SDN
    March 18th, 2012 @ 7:30 am

     No less likely than a patrician from Maine followed by a governor from TX…. and now FL if you believe the rumors.