Rumor Surfaces that Ron or Rand Paul will be Mitt Romney Running Mate

Oh Apollo, we all know Charlie will find away to screw up the convention

Daily Caller says it's Rand Paul. That makes far more sense than the idea of Ron Paul as the second in line.

Rand Paul says ‘it would be an honor to be considered’ as Romney’s veep (this explains a lot)
the Dallas Morning News reported, Paul’s national campaign chairman, Jesse Benton, recently said: “Any Republican should have Rand Paul on his short list.”

On the surface, tapping Paul as veep might not make sense. But conservatives are refusing to go along and eat the dog food with Romney — and adding Rand Paul to the ticket would fire conservatives up – and ensure that Ron Paul drops any plans to launch a 3rd party challenge.

I am 'luke warm' Romney supporter, but if he picks Rand Paul I will become an enthusiastic supporter.

Very interesting Michelle, if Romney does well in the upcoming primaries, it could happen. Rand Paul is from Kentucky, is that right? Kentucky would probably go for the Republican anyway. The only thing is that Rubio in Florida has been christaned the VP running mate by the "establishment" because he is from Florida and is hispanic.

There sure is a lot of speculation but I haven't heard anything that would suggest that Mitt is coming around to Ron's way of thinking. I agree with Michelle that picking Rand makes more sense but I doubt it could happen without Ron's influence. I'll keep my mind open on this.

Ron Paul supporters thank you.

Oh don't get mad Michelle, I've heard Ron Paul people use the term in a joking way.

The New York Times reported a week ago about a budding friendship between Romney and Paul on the campaign trail unlike any other candidates:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/us/politics/mitt-romney-and-ron-paul-f...

Laura Ingraham spent an hour this morning on her radio program playing clips from presidential debates going as far back as last fall to show an interesting pattern: Paul has never attacked Romney nor taken him on about major matters of substance. However, whenever a candidate started to pick up steam against Romney (whether Cain or Bachmann or Gingrich or Santorum), it would be Paul in the debate who would refute their claims or raise questions which served to help Romney in the debate.

Yesterday, WFPL in Kentucky aired an audio clip of Sen. Rand Paul saying he would be "honored" were he asked to be Romney's running mate:
http://www.wfpl.org/2012/02/22/rand-paul-says-it-would-be-an-honor-if-ro...

In answer to Taxfoe's question about Romney not coming over to Paul's opinions, it doesn't matter when it comes to running mates. Remember the bitter 1980 primary fights between Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush? Bush laughed at Reagan's fiscal views and called them "voodoo economics" in a debate and took on a demeanor to suggest that Reagan was just an actor to be taken lightly. Yet what emerged at the convention? A Reagan-Bush ticket. Historians and biographers conclude that no two candidates were as far apart as John F Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson but it served JFK's strategy to win skeptical southern states that he made LBJ his runningmate in a "marriage of convenience."

Exactly, Vic!

Between the two of them, the number of delegates will be staggering. If they can come to some sort of agreement which is acceptable to Ron Paul's base, I believe he could beat Obama.

If not, then virtually none of the Paul supporters will vote for Romney.

If, for example, Romney pledges to remove 100 or so overseas bases and pledges not to fight an illegal war, I imagine that's acceptable to Dr. Paul.

Throw in Rand Paul as VP -- setting him up for a presidential run in 2020 (assuming we're still a republic by then, which is iffy) -- and I think it's a great strategy.

Romney would have nothing at all to lose by agreeing to follow the Constitution and the War Powers Act, so that's nearly a given.

And since I'm sure that Romney understands that Dr. Paul's stance on his foreign policy principles -- unlike the vast country of 6:00 network news watchers -- I don't think that's a huge leap.

I think a Romney/Rand Paul ticket would settle well with just about everyone!

Throw in getting rid of bernanke and putting in a non-keynesian economist as Fed head and that might swing the deal. The VP spot is pretty much for show, look at Biden for instance, what impact does Biden have, other than a negative.

Having Rand in there as Veep only speaks to the future, America has to act now, before financial collapse occurs

"biographers conclude that no two candidates were as far apart as John F Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson"

Bad choice on Kennedy's part

I like Rand Paul and he is a much better communicator than his father, IMO. It would make me feel a lot better if Romney (provided he is the nominee) chose a Rand Paul, Marco Rubio or Allen West for his VP. All I can say about Biden is that he is one heck of an insurance policy

"Bad choice on Kennedy's part"

Actually it wasn't. Kennedy was smart enough to know that he needed to carry one large state in the South and his selection of Johnson would guarantee carrying Texas. It made the difference as the election was extremely close with Texas and Illinois making the difference. The Daly machine took care of Illinois. Yes, they were far apart and Bobby Kennedy was adamant against the choice but JFK knew what he was doing. In retrospect, given the events of November 1963, Johnson was a very effective leader during a traumatic time for the country. He succeeded in getting several pieces of legislation passed that wouldn't have happened if JFK had remained president.

I think Rubio would be the best choice for VP.

No Magoo.
This will not go unanswered: "In retrospect, given the events of November 1963, Johnson was a very effective leader during a traumatic time for the country."
Johnson is the 'leader' that manufactured the Gulf of Tonkin incident, took us to war in Nam that brought back 50,000 body bags filled with the remains of our precious youth, most of whom were drafted. Did you forget about that?

Between the two of them, the number of delegates will be staggering. If they can come to some sort of agreement which is acceptable to Ron Paul's base, I believe he could beat Obama.

Finally. Ron Paul is on the verge of achieving his true purpose in politics. As much as the Paul fans will never admit this, he never stood a real chance at winning the nomination, in spite of his mostly common sense approach to government. Unfortunately, Mr. Paul has a tendency to come across as somewhat of an eccentric individual, much like our own AID in his race for the U. S. Senate. Neither is electable.

Paul’s true purpose is to be the deal maker – the one who advances the conservative/libertarian ideal in a way more powerful than his own candidacy. He is in a position to truly change the Republican party by ensuring that as much of his agenda as possible is included in the campaign of Mitt Romney. In addition, he is in a position to help his son, Rand – who is eminently electable albeit inexperienced – get on the short list of running mates for Romney. The Mitt/Rand combination just might be able to see two goals to fruition: 1) the end of Obama’s presidency, and 2) provide exposure to Rand and position him for his own run at the White House in the future.

So, let’s see…turning the party towards conservative principles, helping defeat Obama, and working to give us the NEXT presidential candidate – extremely important achievements, all. Paul will be more effective as a non-candidate than he could ever hope to be as a candidate.

Ironic that we have a Mr. Magoo posting on this thread. Laura Ingraham today laughed that if she closes her eyes during the debates and only listens to the audio, she hears a touch of Mr. Magoo in Ron Paul's voice cadance!

My thoughts exactly Reaganite.

I just got home from Augusta where property rights patriots had a very bad day. Now this. I think this wild speculation is just meant to further divide the Ron Paul supporters.

Hang tough folks. It isn't over til it's over. 26 days left to caucus.

Wishful thinking by the TFH Society.

Reaganite is fairly accurate. The Paul movement has historical precedent in the early-1960's.

For those who never read it, get the autobiography Goldwater by Barry Goldwater with Jack Casserly (Doubleday 1988). He writes that after JFK's assassination, he knew that Johnson could not lose because the mood of America would not want three presidents within four years time. He said his heart wasn't in it and in the late fall of 1963 he considered pulling out of the GOP presidential nominating race. (Historical note for you young readers: Throughout the post-World War II era until the late-1960s, the Republican Party was under the grip of an eastern elite liberal establishment.) Goldwater writes that leaders and grassroots volunteers from the fledgling conservative movement pressured him to stay in the race and make an all out effort to win the nomination. If he did not do so, they warned, the conservative voice would continue to be ignored and the Eastern Liberal Establishment would strengthen its grip on the GOP.

Goldwater stayed in the race as the voice of the conservative movement. His basic support was young people (as a college kid I was so taken by his refreshing novel approach to government that I got active in Youth for Goldwater) who supplied the legs on the street for the grassroots effort against the Establishment money, media and manipulation of the primary and caucus rules. (Inspired by those awful 1950s film noire spy movies, we even had a college underground which revealed itself by reciting a certain sentence from Conscience of a Conservative. If the other young person replied with the next line, he or she was a co-conspirator and brought into the campaign planning. If not, we didn't bring up politics and kept our secrets As time went on, collegians would reveal themselves by wearing a small discrete pin with the periodical table: AuH2O.)

The Goldwater outcome is different from what Paul can expect. The festering underground of Republicans, primarily west of the Mississippi River, were so fed up with the field -- NY Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, PA Gov. William Scranton (the elder), former-UN Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, even Maine Sen. Margaret Chase Smith was in the news for a while as a possible candidate -- that Goldwater kept finishing second or third in primary after primary while the field split the rest of the vote. By June 1964, nobody had the nomination locked-up and the big California primary became one-on-one with only Goldwater and Rockefeller left. The grassroots street campaign paid off and Goldwater won the California primary and, with it, anough delegates to put him over the top for the nomination.
Although he lost to LBJ that November in one of the worst drubbings to that point in history, the Goldwater campaign saved the Republican Party by moving its heart and soul into a conservative direction. I doubt Ronald Reagan could have won the nomination in 1980 had there not been 16 years of incremental chipping away at liberal Establishment control of the GOP through Goldwater acolytes running for county committee and state committee seats and then getting elected to county offices and state legislatures which eventually led to congressional seats.

Ron Paul is not a viable presidential candidate but his legacy could very well be the evolution of the heart and soul of the Republican Party so that individual liberty and smaller government becomes mainstream thinking. He could be the 21st Century Barry Goldwater and those eager young people who showed up at caucuses and terrified the GOP Establishment might well be the future party leaders, legislators and movers-and-shakers just as we 1964 Youth for Goldwater troops became committee people, got elected to office and are now the greybeards of the conservative movement.

"I think this wild speculation is just meant to further divide the Ron Paul supporters."

I believe you are essentially right Roger, they are offering to throw us a bone so we will go away, then it is back to business as usual.

What is particularly funny is that many people think it can just go back to business as usual, they are thinking well after we get that moon base, maybe it will be Rand Paul's turn to be president in 2020.

We'll all be living the good life then collecting our SS and hopping between summer and winter home in Florida, the Dow will be at 25K and all that borrowing we did to pay off our borrowing finally paid off.

What a freaking joke, we don't have 8 years to build some stinking party, much less this country.

Vic writes:

"The grassroots street campaign paid off and Goldwater won the California primary and, with it, anough delegates to put him over the top for the nomination."

Which is precisely why the Rockefeller, John Lindsay, Dole, McCain, Bloomberg, Snowe and Collins wing of the party established proportioned delegate primaries. They did not want conservatives to win large states. By fragmenting state results they allow moderates to keep adding to their vote totals. This applies to both sides, but it prevents the conservative from winning all of California's votes.

"Spider: Mr. Magoo did you forget about that?"

My comments about President Johnson were in the context of his effectiveness - not whether or not his actions were right or wrong. He was extremely effective in getting legislation passed that was bogged down in Congress during the Kennedy administration. Right or wrong he proved to be a very forceful leader.

Historians will continue to argue about where we would have gone regarding Vietnam had JFK lived. You are correct that the Gulf of Tonkin was a major escallation point.

Having served in Vietnam, I'm well aware of the sacrifices made.

Video - Media speculation on Romney / Paul alliance.

Those media wonks sure are having fun.

Was President Johnson really that effective as an individual in the Oval Office? Or might it be because after the 1964 landslide, Democrats held two-thirds majorities in both the Senate and House? Imagine the havoc Obama could cause were he to have such majorities in both houses of Congress.