Join Ricochet or renew and get 1 yearof National Review/Digital as a bonus!
I could get behind Rand Paul as VP. What do the rest of you think?
Though Katie is correct that Sen. Paul can almost uniquely appeal to both wings of the party, I think he's simply doing too much good work in the Senate to make it worthwhile.
I also don't think that the vice presidency would prepare him for a possible presidential bid half as much as a gubernatorial stint. As it is, Paul's just a legislator -- a class who generally make for bad presidents -- and one who hasn't completed even a third of his only term in office. Give him time.
With out having read other's comments (I'll do so later and probably change my opinion and share it if worthy), my opinion is favorable. I sort of short listed him, Rubio and Susana Martinez as VP candidates for anyone around the time the top ticket field essentially closed.
CuriousJohn: Visceral is correct · 10 hours ago
Curious: Maybe I'm misreading your post, but it appears to be some sort of criticism of my "visceral reaction."
Let's talk "visceral reactions." You make them. I make them. In this case I owned up to the fact that that was what I was doing, including noting that "I have no data" and that "I'm still open-minded on the subject."
So convince me instead of viscerally criticizing my visceral reaction.
I'd rather make Ron Paul the secretary of the Treasury.
First, why do you need to be enthused? I can't say I've ever felt the need to be enthused about a candidate. Being enthused is something I'll leave to the brain-dead "progressives".
I want to see Romney win. Enthusiasm gets the vote out. I know lots of people (I was one of them; Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh were two others) who were bummed about McCain until he chose Palin.
But I'm all for mechanics too. I'm not so much advocating for Rand Paul, as noticing that he would shore up Romney's candidacy in places where it's weak.
In any case, others here have persuaded me that it's not a good idea for other reasons.
I'd be against Scott Walker, just because I think he should keep being governor for a while longer. 1 of 100 senators is less consequential.
The main downside is that Paul would be a media lightning rod, like Palin and we would lose too many independents.
I think swing state priorities will heavily influence this choice:
Ohio - Portman *
Florida - Rubio (big help with other Latino voters at the same time)
Virginia - McDonnell
Pennsylvania - Santorum
North Carolina - Richard Burr
* most likely
Seems to me that if Obama ain't enough for us to snag social cons and libertarians, shame on social cons and libertarians.
It's like asking an athlete on the eve of a championship game, "how do you get motivated for the game?" The answer is, "if you need to get motivated for the championship game, something's wrong with you."
If social cons and libertarians need to get motivated to vote against Obama, something's wrong with them.
I don't know. I have high hopes for him... that he'll take his father's America First philosophy, and subtract the Blame America First part from it. But he hasn't done so yet, so I'm still a bit cautious. He seems, at least in speeches, to be more in tune with conservatives than his father. We'll see.
Viator: I think swing state priorities will heavily influence this choice:
Rubio (big help with other Latino voters at the same time)
I keep seeing how Rubio will be big for getting Hispanics, and there's just no evidence to support that. Rubio will be big with Cubans, which support the GOP anyway, but not with Mexicans or Central Americans, who are increasingly socially liberal and want a socialist handout state. If you don't already know this, let me clue you in on something; Hispanics are different to the point that some groups just outright dislike other Hispanics groups. Puerto Ricans aren't necessarily going to rally around a Mexican. Cubans aren't necessarily going to rally around an Columbian. Etc etc etc. Rubio really has no pull with Hispanics as a whole. Mexicans will vote for a liberal black Democrat before they'll vote for a conservative Cuban Republican. Look at their voting patterns and habits. Non-Cuban Hispanics really aren't up for grabs that much. There are exceptions to the rule, but it's the rule that gets majorities come election time.
I don't think the VP spot is tremendously critical. There are only a couple of criteria, it has to be a credible successor to POTUS and whomever it is must be able to trounce Biden in the single VP debate. Those are not tremendously high bars.
I would prefer that it be somebody from the Republican bench, not necessarily Santorum or Rice, but somebody with name recognition who has considerable experience, but above all else will not diminish other work that Republicans and conservatives are currently doing. A name I've not heard is Judd Gregg. The work to which I refer is that of Scott Walker and Chris Christie both of whom are in the process of significant reforms that are proving effective and popular - let them continue. Similarly, I would not nominate a sitting Republican US Senator - winning the US Senate will make national reforms possible. Not that they have been helping but Brown could lose his MA seat and O. Snowe is retiring, if Republicans hold a seat they should keep it rather than putting it in play. Recall Jim Jeffords.
Anybody who is credible and doesn't upset delicate balances and ongoing work!
If he is indeed not a libertarian, then perhaps. If he is like his dad, then no. I have heard him speak, he is impressive, clearly smart, but if he is a pure non-interventionist, wants to legalize pot and open the borders like Dr. Ron, it would be problematic, and if he is purist like his dad, he is unlikley to support a conservative platform.
I keep seeing how Rubio will be big for getting Hispanics, and there's just no evidence to support that. Rubio will be big with Cubans, which support the GOP anyway, but not with Mexicans or Central Americans, who are increasingly socially liberal and want a socialist handout state.
You might be right. But that opinion comes mostly from liberal commentators in the MSM, unreliable sources likely to be in the bag for Obama.
The incessant attacks on Rubio by Obama and friends might be another clue. If he is so harmless, why bother?
"Clarissa Martinez de Castro, the director of immigration for the National Council of La Raza, a civil rights organization, Rubio’s willingness to work on immigration matters may help mend fences with some, even if Hispanics fundamentally disagree with him on other issues that are important to their community, she said."
A fluent Spanish speaking VP with a Spanish surname might attract more votes than some might expect. Not every voter delves into the nuts and bolts of policy like the Hispanic nomenklatura.
The way Rand Paul characterized Obama's recent "evolution" on Gay Marriage was, as reported in the MSM at least (so a mine full of salt with that report), less than gracious.
I am not saying we need Miss Congeniality for VP (Lord knows that would be foolish) but maybe someone who's read enough Dale Carnegie to be more measured in his speech?
Way to snag both so-cons and libertarians? Get them both to wear pantyhose.
A name I've not heard is Judd Gregg....
Similarly, I would not nominate a sitting Republican US Senator - winning the US Senate will make national reforms possible.
I've heard Judd's name suggested, albeit never as a first choice, and he would appeal to libertarians (he was P.J. O'Rourke's favorite senator, I believe). He'd be, in my view, a better choice for that than Paul. It'd make a big difference in New Hampshire, and I do like the thought of a Judd presidency. Plus, the West Wing paved the way for a NH economist governor becoming President.
I think Romney's better off picking a conservative than a libertarian, though. They'd agree on more (which helps), and there are more conservative swing voters than libertarians in the states that matter, and more conservatives in the bases of states which are base turnout races. A libertarian would only be better in New Hampshire, New Mexico, and maybe Nevada/ Colorado.
If the pick is Portman, sitting US Senator for Ohio, btw, Portman's replacement for his first term as VP would be appointed by Gov. Kasich. There are plenty of good choices available.
I don't think there's a problem with Paul's state; he's nicely situated to appeal to both the Great Lakes and the Southern swing states. Kentucky's the state between the most important swinger and the fourth most important swinger.
Like clothing, though, VPs do best when they emphasize qualities or correct for flaws. Rand would instead emphasize Mitt's having a major political father and lack of foreign policy experience. I can't think of a single skill or impressive achievement that Rand has that would balance the ticket.
I don't think his experience lends itself to being President; he's not run anything substantial. I've not seen evidence of his being devastating in debates. He's not been too heavily vetted and doesn't have enormous name recognition. He's not super-normal in a Mitt's oddness combating kinda way. I see no evidence that he wouldn't fall for the "bipartisan agreement" tricks that Reagan fell for or that he, is general, effective on details. He's not got a record on which to judge his delegation and nomination abilities.
He'd be a label pick, like Cain was for some.
Incidentally, it feels weird responding to a Katie post. :-(
Missing you already!
What I hear from some of my Ron Paul friends is that they realize the Ron Paul won't be the candidate but that his efforts have opened the eyes of many young voters and have encouraged them to get involved. However, they really favor Rand more. Ron's just been out there plowing the road so that when Rand is ready, a base has been established to help with his campaign.
Way to repel everyone. I'd probably vote for a Democrat (ugh, Hillary) who was not an isolationist before I'd vote for isolationist Paul. And that is hard to say. Joe Biden might not be any worse as VP, and he is wrong about almost everything.
Fortunately, this amusing suggestion is about VP, not #1, and also is not serious.
Become a Member for $3.67 a month.
You must be a Member to subscribe to this podcast. Please Join or Sign In.
Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:
Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place. Join today!
Already a Member? Sign In