Gary Johnson Editorial On Ron Paul’s New Hampshire Performance

Gary Johnson is a Presidential candidate for the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party. He was previously a candidate in the GOP primary in which a fellow competitor for votes was Ron Paul. This is why Gary Johnson’s editorial at Daily Caller calling attention to Ron Paul’s performance in New Hampshire is interesting.

But something funny happened Tuesday in New Hampshire. Ron Paul finished a very strong second in the state’s “open” primary with 23% of the vote. Perhaps even more significant, every exit poll shows that Dr. Paul was the winner among young voters, independents and other “non-traditional” Republican primary voters. In other words, he did pretty darn well among those same demographic groups that elected Barack Obama.

The crowds at Ron Paul’s events in New Hampshire may not have looked like the good folks who typically show up at Lincoln Day dinners, but they were big, they were enthusiastic and they produced an election night outcome that shoved several “mainstream” candidates to the back of the bus to South Carolina and beyond.

Johnson uses the final couple of paragraphs to explain why Paul’s good showing in New Hampshire is a good sign for “liberty”.

84 thoughts on “Gary Johnson Editorial On Ron Paul’s New Hampshire Performance

  1. AnthonyD.

    I participated in the online town hall Governor Johnson conducted last night. Went from 8-9:30pm, Governor Johnson took a variety of questions from supporters and potental supporters.

    My initial opinion stands firm at this point: he presently does not project the eloquent and stirring defense of liberty that Ron Paul does. It may be a pie-in-the-sky dream that he eventually will. as that sort of fire for libertarian ideals may be similar to running speed in a football player: in some part, its innate.

    I was able to ask him how, after it becomes clear that Ron Paul will not win the GOP nomination, he intends to convince those rabid supporters to join our fight. His response was that he knows the Paulbots are smart and well-read, and he hopes that his own campaign will convince them that he (Johnson), most closely matches Paulian beliefs.

    As far as it went, it was a good answer, but not the best answer. I guess, again, he gave sort of a pragmatic answer to the question, rather than a fire in the belly type answer. I was hoping for something along the lines of, “I need those patriots on my side, and we need to do whatever it takes to make them part of our team. Our campaign is dead in the water without them.”

    Also, his foreign policy position is still a little weak. While he wants out of Iraq and Afghanistan, he indicated that Iran is no threat…at this point. And the “at this point” bothers me. As does calling Israel an ally.

  2. Robert Capozzi

    #2 GJ missive: check.

    3 Anthony: Our campaign is dead in the water without them.

    Me: Ouch. Rings desperate, not true, for me.

    Also, GJ is a chill westerner, not one for blood-curdling calls to action. First rule in politics is be yourself.

  3. AnthonyD.

    Robert @ 4,

    My post may have come off as overly disappointed. There is no question he is starting off way better than Barr did. He referred to his best rating by the ACLU several times, something I doubt Barr would have done. And the linked article above further assuages my fears that he is going to pull a Barr and ignore the Paulbots.

    I do hear what you are saying with regard to the different dispositions of Paul and Johnson. Thats why I referred to the “do whatever it takes” mentality. Its why I phrased the question as: what are YOU going to do to win over those guys. Even if it means stepping out of your comfort zone a little. In the end, whats the diff between ignoring them like Barr did, and not changing your tune a little to win them over? Either way, you don’t end up with them. And as you said, we need ’em.

  4. ATBAFT

    Every state GJ campaign leader should be accumulating names, etc. of the numerous Ron Paul MeetUp groups in their state and getting ready to contact them immediately it becomes obvious RP is not the nominee. I did it in 2008, provided the state list to Bob Barr and his campaign did not contact them (I know, because I salted the list with a few contacts and they never heard “boo” from Barr). Let’s not make the same mistake in 2012.

  5. AnthonyD.

    Further, I don’t personally have a problem with desperation. If the chick is hot enough and desperate works, I’ll be damned pathetically desperate. If going and getting coffee and donuts for all the Paulbots wins them over, I humbly volunteer myself to drive around the country buying them coffee and donuts. I’ll feed them directly if they want me to. We need ’em.

  6. AnthonyD.

    ATBAFT @ 6,

    Excellent, and blatantly obvious idea. I hope GJohnson tells his people nothing else matters; doing what you suggest could be the difference between getting in the televised debates and not.

  7. Robert Capozzi

    5 anthony: He referred to his best rating by the ACLU several times, something I doubt Barr would have done.

    me: It’s easy to beat up on the memory of Barr, but — dude — Barr was on the board of the ACLU.

  8. paulie

    Every state GJ campaign leader should be accumulating names, etc. of the numerous Ron Paul MeetUp groups in their state and getting ready to contact them immediately it becomes obvious RP is not the nominee. I did it in 2008, provided the state list to Bob Barr and his campaign did not contact them (I know, because I salted the list with a few contacts and they never heard “boo” from Barr). Let’s not make the same mistake in 2012.

    Excellent point. Hope Johnson campaign staff is reading.

    Not surprising Barr and co. failed to do this.

  9. AnthonyD.

    Robert @ 9,

    You’re right. You’re right. I am probably at this point just hypersensitive to the possibility of screwing the pooch again with the Paul supporters, a la what ATBAFT posted above. Probably need to relax a little with regard to that, let this situation play itself out a little more.

  10. AnthonyD.

    Paulie @ 12,

    Oh, I’m not. We probably got what, a 1 in 100 chance of getting in with intense Paulbot support? And effectively zero chance without it.

  11. Robert Capozzi

    I dunno. It feels like 2012 could be “different.” If AE is significant. If TK is right and somehow Newt gets the nomination. If RP bolts. If the US goes to war with Iran. Dunno. AD’s odds look about right, and yet….

  12. Robert Capozzi

    Seems germane:

    “Take a look at the Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted in mid-December. In it, President Obama and Romney are tied at 47 percent in a traditional two-way race. Add Paul in as a third party candidate and Obama takes 42 percent, Romney 32 percent and Paul 21 percent. “

  13. George Phillies

    We have had many campaigns in which people got into debates. In my Congressional campaign I was in about a dozen of them. When an opinion was expressed, the media said I won the debate. It’s a nice way to get our opinions out, but debates have little effect on outcomes.

  14. paulie

    the number of people who watch non-presidential political debates is tiny.

    The LP candidate getting into a presidential debate would make a huge difference.

    From there it would depend on performance in the debate(s) and other factors.

  15. Robert Capozzi

    18 p: Those polls will probably drop if it actually happens, and they are not polling the (yet unknown) AE nominee.

    me: Interesting? Why down on announcement? I’d think that could cause a bump?

    Of course, like most things, the how matters as much as the what. RP’d need to stage and time it properly for max impact.

  16. paulie

    The wasted vote “squeeze” that always happens closer to the elections. Johnson is polling at 8% now, 0.8 would be good by actual election time. Barr was somewhere close iirc. 0.4% in final result.

    The only way around it is to be in actual striking range. With a 4-way race and who knows on the economic and international scenes, perhaps there could be an opening. But, it’s not likely.

    We also still have the straight ticket device in many states.

  17. Robert Capozzi

    p, yes, prez debates are consequential, kinda like the Super Bowl is for dudes and the Oscars are for shorties. Everyone kinda knows that pretty much everyone is watching, which creates a Jungian-type dynamic to the debates. I seem to recall that Perot was getting all sortsa propers leading up to and after the first debates.

    I still believe AE won’t be a factor UNLESS somehow Romney stumbles.

    As for Pat’s take, I really don’t think the Pauls give a shit about Rand’s political future. If you look at Paul’s portfolio, he’s banking on Mad Max comin’ to town.

    If Rand’s a one-termer…it’s all good. Back to KY to practice medicine and hopefully NOT start a newsletter publishing business… 😉

  18. JT

    Paulie: “the number of people who watch non-presidential political debates is tiny.

    The LP candidate getting into a presidential debate would make a huge difference.

    From there it would depend on performance in the debate(s) and other factors.”

    I agree. Other debates aren’t analogous to the nationally televised debates of candidates for President. How many people watch a regular football game as opposed to the Super Bowl?

    That said, I feel confident in saying that GJ isn’t going to poll at 15% and make it into the duopoly-controlled televised debates.

  19. Robert Capozzi

    22 p, oh, yes, the squeeze happens, mos’ def’. But I think it’s in the final weeks, not when the polling for who gets in the debates happens. That’s, like, early Sept or so, no?

  20. paulie

    I do think the Pauls care about Rand’s future. They are all about family.

    There’s already a squeeze in September, tho not to the same extent as in November.

    I agree that Johnson won’t get in the debates, even if he has Paul’s support. He’s not Paul, and Paul took a long time to get there. Even now I would not say Paul would necessarily get in the debates, although he might.

  21. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie@15,

    In South Carolina, Romney has dropped seven points from his numbers before the New Hampshire primary, to 23.1% — and Gingrich is within the margin of error at 21.3%.

    The thing about an incremental process is that the outcome of each increment tends to affect the overall projections for later.

    If Gingrich beats, or even effectively ties, Romney in South Carolina — as he seems set to do — the game changes. That (that Gingrich can make a successful stand in South Carolina and/or Florida and begin gathering in the “not Romney” vote) has always been the basis of my prediction that he will win the nomination.

  22. paulie

    One thing I definitely do not see happening out of Buchanan’s column is Paul Sr. endorsing, much less campaigning for, Romney (or in deference to Tom, Gingrich), unless Rand is on the ticket. A prime time speech won’t seal that deal.

    Otherwise, the best the NSGOP can hope from Ron Paul on presidential endorsements is that he keeps his mouth shut.

    I do think he’s probably, tho not necessarily, right in betting against Paul Sr. going off-rez, but I’m not as confident as he is.

  23. Richard Winger

    In 2007 and early 2008, some great activists in “Rock the Debates” were out watching the campaign events of the “major” presidential candidates, asking the question at every opportunity…”If you are the nominee, will you agree to at least one general election debate in which everyone who is on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win is invited?” I mourn that no one seems to be doing that this year. Obviously this is easier for people living in South Carolina right now, just as it was easier last month for people in Iowa and NH.

  24. Robert Capozzi

    26 p, well, looks to me like Rand’s future is just fine, fine, fine. What it all boils down to (or should boil down to) is what path advances liberty optimally?

    First off, maybe, maybe, maybe Rand might be prez timber in 2 cycles. If his Dad bolts and he endorses him, big whoop. Rs are a sick bunch, I agree, but to hold such a grievance for that long over endorsing one’s Dad…I dunno. He’d probably want to run for guv first, btw.

    Frankly, barring a major sea change, the Rs are locked up by the social cons (pawns) and the neo cons (puppetmasters). Unless Rand becomes Gumby like Romney, those groups ain’t buying a Paul as their nominee.

    All this talk of Ron dictating planks in the GOP platform…are you kidding me? Who gives a shit about the GOP platform? Unlike the LP, where it’s used as an ideological purity test, the GOP’s platform is forgotten the moment it’s printed.

    Getting a speaking slot at the convention? Oy vey. That pales in comparison to going toe-to-toe 3 or so times with BHO and MR. If you want to change minds (i.e., get people thinking), there is no bigger stage. Now THAT’D be a swan song….

  25. paulie

    Tom,

    I understand your theory, I just don’t agree with it.

    I think what you see in that SC poll is the reflection of the attacks on Romney, but not yet the reflection of his defense and counterattacks – but you will.

    Gingrich himself has said he is in deep trouble if he does not win SC, and that’s win, not “effectively tie.”

  26. Robert Capozzi

    Plus, FL’s size and diverse media markets HEAVILY favors he who has gwap (I’ve seen it spelled this way recently, although I prefer guap or benjies). Severe gwap advantage to Romney.

  27. paulie

    Rand might be prez timber in 2 cycles.

    Why not one cycle?

    If his Dad bolts and he endorses him, big whoop. Rs are a sick bunch, I agree, but to hold such a grievance for that long over endorsing one’s Dad…I dunno.

    Oh, they will. If it happens Paul will be about as popular with Republicans as Nader was with Democrats after 2000, and yes it will rub off on Rand, sorry.

    He’d probably want to run for guv first, btw.

    If so, he can do so in 2015.

    Frankly, barring a major sea change, the Rs are locked up by the social cons (pawns) and the neo cons (puppetmasters). Unless Rand becomes Gumby like Romney, those groups ain’t buying a Paul as their nominee.

    Rand is definitely more gumby on those than Ron. And the theocon/neocon wing is losing its grip on the Republicans as the Paul wing gets better organized.

    All this talk of Ron dictating planks in the GOP platform…are you kidding me?

    Dictating, no. Influencing, yes.

    It may be purely symbolic, as you point out, but it will give Paul delegates some sense of accomplishment at the convention, and the party needs to give them that to keep them engaged.

  28. Robert Capozzi

    33 p: Oh, they will. If it happens Paul will be about as popular with Republicans as Nader was with Democrats after 2000, and yes it will rub off on Rand, sorry.

    me: Nader seems beside the point, since he’s not a D pol. Closest analogy I can think of is Teddy challenging Carter in 80, and I see no evidence that the Kennedy family was hurt politically.

    p: …but it will give Paul delegates some sense of accomplishment at the convention,…

    me: Speaking of rubbing off, I get more sense of accomplishment from *that* than Paulistas will get influencing the GOP platform. 😉 I mean, what’re they gonna get…a throwaway line about the gold standard? Oblique references to the dangers of nation building?

  29. Robert Capozzi

    33 p: And the theocon/neocon wing is losing its grip on the Republicans as the Paul wing gets better organized.

    me: Hmm, not seeing it. Sounds like wishful thinking.

  30. paulie

    Teddy didn’t run alt party.

    Speaking of rubbing off, I get more sense of accomplishment from *that* than Paulistas will get influencing the GOP platform.

    I said sense of accomplishment for a reason.

  31. paulie

    Hmm, not seeing it. Sounds like wishful thinking.

    It’s all about organization.

    Among the younger set, it’s on Paul’s side.

    Theocon-neocons did not have that much sway pre-Reagan, it was mostly establishment.

    As it still is to a large extent – Bushes, Dole, McCain.

    They’ve had to defer to the Reagan wing, and now they’ll have to start deferring to the Paul wing. To what extent remains to be seen.

  32. Robert Capozzi

    36 p, right. But Nader wasn’t a pol, he was a cause guy, before and after 2000. He was never in it to win it. So there are no good analogies.

    Presumably Rand supported Ron in 88, too, but that didn’t hurt him. Elephants have long memories, I’m told.

  33. paulie

    Republicans still blame Perot for Clinton, without any basis even.

    Ron Paul was a non-factor in ’88, besides which Republicans won. Rand Paul was of course a total non-factor in ’88.

  34. Robert Capozzi

    37 p: …now they’ll have to start deferring to the Paul wing.

    me: It remains to be seen if there IS a “Paul wing.” So far, his support is coming disproportionately from non-party independents. The young people might just be rowdies, who like to throw snowballs at Hannity and so forth. When RP leaves the stage, will they follow Rand/Gumby? Will RP phone in blogs to the CfL and somehow keep the momentum up? (Hopefully, they keep Rockwell away from the editorial!) 😉

    Political movements need actual politicians getting elected. Otherwise, they lack that sense of accomplishment which most enterprises needs to sustain themselves.

    Can the mantle be passed to Rand? I’m skeptical.

    Deferring to the Paul wing requires there be a wing. There may be one or two states where the GOP apparatchiks are Paulistas. I’m betting it shrivels in 2-4 years.

    But, yes, the country club never lost control of the nominee. However, the nominees do have to bend some for the proles and the professors. Since I’d like to see the LP supplant the GOP, I kinda like just how contorted the GOP has become…it’s more vulnerable than ever to toppling.

  35. paulie

    BTW, interesting factoid from TV surfing this AM: Huntsman supporters are reading Paul’s book. ‘

    Not sure what that means but maybe it means something.

  36. Robert Capozzi

    39 p, so the risks that Rand is permanently damaged by RP bolting go down, by your logic. It’s only if the R loses that they hold a grudge.

    That’s on one side. ON the other side, RP thinks Mad Max is coming to town any day now. This is his one shot. And he plays for, what, a sentence in the platform?

  37. paulie

    It’s only if the R loses that they hold a grudge.

    R will lose. And they will hold a grudge.

    That’s on one side. ON the other side, RP thinks Mad Max is coming to town any day now.

    I don’t think he will bet on that to the extent of shutting off the Republican route for Rand.

    But I’m not as sure of that as Buchanan is, as I said.

  38. paulie

    I think if Romnich really wants to close down the possibility he has to give Rand the VP spot. Counts for more than a speech and meaningless feel-good platform posturing.

  39. paulie

    From Gingromney’s perspective, such a decision has two aspects:

    1) Defensive – they are worried about Ron Paul going off-rez and potentially costing them the election, and this would preclude it.

    2) Offensive – the older style Republican line is drawing older crowds and is thus an endangered species; they need to reinvigorate it with the youthful energy and enthusiasm of Paul supporters and give it new life.

    Rand Paul is less off-rez ideologically than Ron Paul, so he would not be as out of place on such a ticket.

  40. AnthonyD.

    Paulie @ 45,

    I would have to concur with RCapozzi: I see near zero chance of the GOP giving Rand the VP spot.

    For Ron Paul to fall in line behind the GOP nominee, or to just shut his mouth, he is going to have to in some way genuinely believe that he is affecting the direction of the GOP towards his thinking. How the Republicans go about doing that, I don’t know.

    Maybe they can create a phony GOP headquarters with a bunch of framed Bastiat and Rothbard quotes hanging on the wall, get him to sign something endorsing Romney, then tear the place down.

  41. paulie

    For Ron Paul to fall in line behind the GOP nominee, or to just shut his mouth, he is going to have to in some way genuinely believe that he is affecting the direction of the GOP towards his thinking.

    Unlike idealistic new-to-the-game Paul delegates, Ron Paul himself won’t see platform planks and a floor speech as major wins. I think the only thing guaranteed to keep him in line is a Rand Paul VP spot. With a carrot and a stick to the elephant’s ass it just might happen.

    No, I’m not saying it necessarily will by any means.

  42. Robert Capozzi

    p, btw, RP HIMSELF didn’t support McCain in 08. That’s about as off-rez as it gets. And, iirc, McCain lost to a guy whose middle name is “Hussein.”

    For that, he’s been punished how exactly by the GOP?

    If they can’t punish the father for the father’s sins, why would they punish the son for the father’s sins?

  43. paulie

    RP HIMSELF didn’t support McCain in 08. That’s about as off-rez as it gets.

    Well, no, it’s not nearly off-rez as running himself and getting more than the margin of loss. It’s not as if Baldwin cost McCain the election.

    If they can’t punish the father for the father’s sins, why would they punish the son for the father’s sins?

    The father’s sins are at this point relatively minor. Not that they haven’t tried to punish him – they have districted him out time and again and backed primary challengers for US House, among other things.

    But that is nothing compared to being blamed for a second Obama term. Then the santorum will really hit the oscillating blades.

  44. Gene Berkman

    Paulie @ 33 – Rand Paul cannot run for President in 2016 because his senate seat will be up that year.

    I don’t think Ron Paul will run third party because he will be quite tired after his extended run in the Republican primaries. But he is not that loyal to the Republicans, so I don’t see any circumstance in which he will endorse a Republican candidate that he considers pro-war.

    It is a good possibility he will endorse Gary Johnson, who backed Ron’s campaign in 2008 and spoke at the Rally for the Republic.

    The Libertarian Movement is bigger than the Libertarian Party, and Ron Paul considers himself part of the Libertarian Movement. Those of us who have interacted with Ron Paul over the years, seen him at numerous Libertarian events etc understand that.

  45. Trent Hill Post author

    “Rand Paul cannot run for President in 2016 because his senate seat will be up that year.”

    So?

  46. Robert Capozzi

    P, the districting and other challengers has been going on for some time. RP has been a black sheep most of his pol career.

    Oh, whatever. I’d like to think the Pauls put ideas over narrow, intergenerational electoral advantages, but I am not Sipos, I can’t read their minds.

  47. paulie

    Rand Paul cannot run for President in 2016 because his senate seat will be up that year.

    He may be Governor by then. Also, he may not want another Senate term.

    It is a good possibility he will endorse Gary Johnson, who backed Ron’s campaign in 2008 and spoke at the Rally for the Republic.

    I agree.

    That, or a general alt party endorsement like he was planning before Barr yutzed things up.

    Or maybe he’ll keep quiet altogether.

    I don’t think he’ll go with the CP again.

  48. Thomas L. Knapp

    Strom Thurmond managed to be a Democrat governor, then a Dixiecrat presidential candidate, then a write-in winner for US Senate, then a Republican Senator for life.

    If Paul the Younger’s got chops of his own, I doubt that anything his father does can really hurt him that much. On the other hand, some things his father could do might help him a lot.

  49. AnthonyD.

    paulie @ 50,

    I guess I am more pessmistic about the possibility of Romney/the GOP offering anyone with the last name Paul the V.P. spot. I’d say they’d just as soon call Ron’s bluff, tell him his son is not getting the v.p. spot, and tell him that if he tries to run 3rd party, they’ll make sure his son’s political career is over at the end of the current term, such that he will not even be able to run for county Dog Catcher in the future.

    You may say that Ron will think “I’ve got elected many times without party support,” but the GOP may tell him, “you ain’t see nothin’ yet as far as what we can do to your son.”

    Will Ron then call their bluff? I think not.

  50. Robert Capozzi

    53 gb: I don’t think Ron Paul will run third party because he will be quite tired after his extended run in the Republican primaries.

    me: Certainly possible. If Romney takes SC and FL, it seems likely that Huntsman, Perry and Santorum drop out. Newt may be so deranged that he hangs in, I guess. RP can chill, cutting back on his travel schedule. He can sort out what he wants to do after Super Tuesday in early Feb.

    That gives him about 3 months for the LP’s nomination. AE selects in June, but that really doesn’t feel like a fit for RP.

    A lot could happen in those 3 months.

    He could certainly play it safe, protect Rand to the extent an alt run would hurt Rand, but, at 76, this is definitely IT for his pol career. Going out with a whimper seems anticlimactic to me.

    This is a dude who just a few months ago said heroin should be legal on national TV. This is a dude who said Lincoln was wrong to fight the Civil War on MTP. I didn’t think the latter esp was all that well handled, but dude’s got some cajones on him.

    I dunno…

  51. Darryl W. Perry

    Lieberman was re-elected to the Senate & was the Vice Presidential nominee for the Democratic Party in 2000.
    So, I don’t see any reason why Rand Paul couldn’t seek both offices in 2016 if he chose. Not that I think he will.

  52. Brian Holtz

    Like Democratic VP candidates Lyndon B. Johnson in 1960, Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, John Edwards in 2004, and Joe Biden in 2008, Lieberman’s Senate term was due to expire during the 2000 election cycle. He decided to run for reelection to maintain his seat, as Johnson, Bentsen and Biden did. All four won, but since Johnson and Biden were also elected Vice-President, they gave up their seats.

  53. Gene Berkman

    Yes, and William Lemke ran for President (Union Party) and re-election to Congress (Republican/Non-Partisan) at the same time in 1936.

    Some of us were hoping that Ron Paul could run for President (Libertarian) and re-election to Congress (Republican) in 2008 but it did not happen.

    I did not mean that he could not run for President in 2016 legally, just that he would almost certainly prefer to retain his Senate seat.

  54. Pingback: Gary Johnson Editorial On Ron Paul’s New Hampshire Performance | ThirdPartyPolitics.us

  55. Gary Chartier

    I’m skeptical that Romney would offer Rand the VP slot. But even if he did, so what? As we know, the vice presidency isn’t worth a pitcher of warm ____. If the Pauls really want to impact policy through their participation in the political process, it seems clear that Rand’s accepting the VP slot would be a mistake. He’d be committed to promoting policies he opposed; he’d have minimal influence on policy formulation; as a presidential or senatorial or gubernatorial candidate, he’d be asked to take responsibility for Romney’s policy choices; and he’d be blocking his dad’s third-party run (since Ron surely wouldn’t run against Rand). It seems to me that, if he were offered a spot on the ticket, he’d have good reason to say “no,” something his dad would have good reason to encourage him to do.

  56. paulie

    It would put him in the line of succession for their presidential nomination in 2016 (or 2020 in the unlikely case that Romney wins this year).

    The last few Republican tickets:

    2008 McCain – past runner up
    2004 Bush – incumbent
    2000 Bush – son of a Bush
    1996 Dole – ’76 VP candidate
    1992 Bush – incumbent
    1988 Bush – VP
    1984 Reagan – incumbent
    1980 Reagan – past runner up
    1976 Ford – incumbent
    1972 Nixon – incumbent
    1968 Nixon – former VP
    1964 Goldwater – past runner up
    1960 Nixon – VP
    1956 Eisenhower – incumbent
    1952 Eisenhower – victorious war general
    1948, 1944 Dewey – past runner up

    You’d have to go back to Willkie in 1940 to have a Republican nominee who is not somehow the “next in line.”

    Rand Paul doesn’t get to be next in line unless he runs for the nomination and loses first – unless he is a VP candidate first, which gives him a claim to be next in line.

    And, if Romney should somehow eke out a win, Rand Paul would stand a chance of succeeding him to the presidency if Romney is for whatever reason unable to complete his term.

  57. paulie

    I didn’t say every past VP is automatically next in line, only that you don’t get to be next in line unless you are a past candidate for the nomination, past VP or VP candidate, son of a president or victorious war general.

    At least not for over 70 years now.

  58. Robert Capozzi

    p, tell us more about your comment 68: “1964 Goldwater – past runner up”. Care to elaborate?

  59. Robert Capozzi

    Yes, but didn’t G’water decline to run? I guess that works…10 votes in convention for a non-candidate.

    Yes, though, the GOP certainly prefers to nominate known quantities, next in line, if you prefer. Sounds like not a terrible idea for them.

    Rand Paul ain’t gonna get the VP slot in 2012. I don’t prognosticate much, and Andy is the King at such things, anyway. Alleged kidnapper from a border low-pop red state, son of thorn-in-side wingnut…nope. Michele Bachmann stands a better chance, although Rubio makes the most sense for them….

  60. paulie

    It said Rockefeller declined to run, and Goldwater got ten votes.

    Not a close runner up, but runner up nevertheless.

    Rand Paul makes sense for them because he keeps the Paul wing on-rez rather than potentially off-rez. See above re: carrot and stick. Or maybe it was in another thread, but I already explained the potential rationale.

    Mind you, I’m not saying it will happen, only that it could.

  61. Rob Banks

    Hmmmm…maybe….but probably not enough.

    A VP spot positions him much better.

    The GOP needs the young blood like a vampire.

    Probably not, but it could happen.

  62. Melty

    Romney’s the establishment nominee, but the establishment does not especially want him to beat Obama, and all’s fine with them cuz it’s not likely he will, but they don’t much mind if he does. That’s why Romney won’t ask Rand Paul to be his running mate. Even if he did, many Paulistas’d feel betrayed if Rand’d accept.
    What all’s sed @67’s right too.

  63. paulie

    Top two reasons Romney may consider it:

    1) Head off a Ron Paul alt party run

    2) GOP base getting older – they need the energy of the younger Paul wing

    That said you are probably correct that he probably won’t.

    Even if he did, many Paulistas’d feel betrayed if Rand’d accept.

    Some would, but I think most would see it as a smart move strategically to position himself.

    However, should that come to pass the ones feeling betrayed may be more recruitable for an alt party. So there may be a silver lining, or more than one, depending on how you look at it.

  64. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@73,

    I don’t know if Rand Paul would be offered, or accept, the veep slot with Romney, but I think you’re misunderestimating his resume. It’s a PERFECT fit with Romney’s.

    Romney is a northeastern moderate/liberal. Paul is a southern conservative/libertarian with a famous conservative/libertarian dad out west.

    A northeastern moderate/liberal candidate is almost certain to choose a southern or western running mate, to allay the suspicious of voters in those regions and get them behind him.

    Romney doesn’t need quite as much western mojo as the usual northeasterner — he’s got a natural base of support among his co-religionists in Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, etc. — but the Texas connection certainly wouldn’t hurt.

    As a partial-first-term US Senator, Rand Paul is perfect politically. He’s proven he’s got chops (“up and comer,” “rising star”), but he hasn’t built up a long record for opponents to pick over.

    Are there other picks who might be as good or better? Sure. But Paul the Younger wouldn’t be a bad pick at all.

  65. Humongous Fungus

    TLK,

    On the other hand, if your theory about Gingrich is correct, I don’t see either Paul getting squat.

    In that case, a Paul third party run this year becomes more plausible.

  66. Robert Capozzi

    82 hf, why is RP More likely v Gingrich than Romney?

    81 tk, paulie’s theory is different…that RP2 may get selected by mollify RP. Your more conventional regional/ideological rationale makes some sense. RP2 MIGHT make a list.

  67. paulie

    why is RP More likely v Gingrich than Romney?

    Gingrich is more negative toward Paul and extremely anti-liberty on issues — for executing people for marijuana, bombing Iran now among other things; and Knapp’s point on regional balance does not apply to Gingrich either. Plus, Gingrich has been getting in touch with his inner economic populist-progressive lately.

    paulie’s theory is different…that RP2 may get selected by mollify RP. Your more conventional regional/ideological rationale makes some sense. RP2 MIGHT make a list.

    It’s not different, I just highlighted different aspects of why it might be a logical choice. Tom’s reasons make sense as well.

    Also, you captured only the stick portion of my argument, not so much the carrot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *