Saturday, June 9, 2012
Deal with the devil???
Rand Paul Gambles on Romney. Has a Deal Been Made?
Will Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney attract the libertarian and tea party vote necessary to defeat Obama?
by Evan Mazur
Undermining the Revolution
On June 7, Senator Rand Paul, son of still presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul, endorsed Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee and said he would actively campaign for him. The Ron Paul community isn't happy - shortly after hitting the front page of the popular DailyPaul.com website, the story has accumulated about minus 350 votes (and you can be sure that number has nowhere to go but down) and many are accusing Rand Paul of being a sellout. It's only June and the Republican National Convention doesn't take place until August 27 when the delegates officially vote and declare the 2012 GOP presidential nominee. Ron Paul has emphasized throughout the campaign the importance of the delegate process and Paul delegates outnumber the Romney delegates in a number of states. Although the odds are against him winning, there was still hope because of the possibility that Romney pledged delegates were actually stealth Paul delegates who would abstain from supporting Romney. This is similar to a strategy proposed by the Reagan campaign in the 1970s. A St. Petersburg Times July 21, 1976 story Reagan forces may 'steal' Ford votes reported:
In secret strategy sessions, Reagan aides have toyed with the idea of asking these delegates to abstain as long as their state laws require them to honor the primary verdicts. This would prevent the President from ringing up an early-ballot victory. Then, in subsequent ballots, they could legally switch to Reagan.
Rand Paul's endorsement of Romney sets to undermine the possibility of a Ron Paul victory through the delegate process. "Give up now and accept Romney as the inevitable nominee" is the message it gives.
Let's Make a Deal
With the RNC still months away, why did Rand Paul endorse Romney and why did he say he would also actively campaign for him? The most likely explanation is that a deal has been made. Consider the following:
A viewer asked a Fox News panel of political analysts if the GOP nominee could defeat Obama without attracting the support of Ron Paul's followers. The 3 person panel unanimously declared that it could not and one analyst stated "I'll just tell you I've done 9 presidential campaigns, if we don't have those young voters that are supporting him, we will not basically win this race".
Economist Robert Wenzel blogged "National Review’s Robert Costa reported last night that Mitt Romney and Rand Paul met privately for about 30 minutes in Washington. There's speculation all over the net what this means. I suspect we will know by the RNC."
I suspect we know the answer now. Rand Paul wants to be vice president and has thrown his support behind Mitt Romney, and Mitt Romney wants to attempt to strengthen his conservative credibility to "excite the base" and also win over the Ron Paul ~ libertarian voters that he desperately needs to defeat Obama, so he will nominate Rand Paul as VP.
Making a Bad Gamble
Romney is a serial flip flopper who supported the TARP banker bailout, supported a stimulus package in 2008 that called for infrastructure spending and an increase in the money supply by the Federal Reserve, said that Fed Chairman Bernanke was doing a "good job" and stated "I'm not going to spend my time focusing on the Federal Reserve." Romney further stated that he thought reducing federal spending by a trillion dollars would "[throw] us into recession or depression". Romney also implemented government run health care in MA and the Romneycare team went on to craft Obamacare. Rand Paul has endorsed Romney even though Paul ran and won on the platform of anti-bailout, anti-stimulus, anti-spending, anti-Obamacare, and Fed transparency. There is no legitimate justification for supporting Romney and most Ron Paul supporters will see right through the charade and not vote for Romney even if a Paul name is on the same ticket.
Some Rand Paul supporters are claiming that by offering this endorsement and playing politics in 2012, Rand sets himself up for the presidency in 2016 so that he can finally accomplish his "true" agenda and set the country back on track. Good luck with that - Romney will surely accelerate the growth of America's fiscal cancer and and it's already been calculated that by 2025, the entire federal budget will be consumed by entitlements and interest on the national debt. And that's an optimistic scenario that assumes interest rates won't go up. Robert Wenzel believes it's inevitable that interest rates will rise sharply in 2018 (only a year after a hypothetical swearing in ceremony for a President Rand Paul). So even if Rand won in 2016, he'd be dealt a losing hand and the free market would be blamed.
So whether or not Rand Paul is actually chosen as Romney's VP, Ron Paul supporters and libertarians should dismiss this endorsement and not vote for Romney. I wouldn't even vote for a Romney ~ Ron Paul ticket, much less a Romney ~ Rand ticket. Personally, I'll be supporting the Libertarian ticket of former NM Governor Gary Johnson and Judge Jim Gray. And I hope Rand doesn't get the nod for VP - it would put Ron Paul in a very akward position to not endorse a ticket with his own son on it, and if he did endorse the establishment Romney, it would leave a bitter taste in the mouth of Ron Paul supporters and Ron would retire on a very sour note and potentially cause great damage to the liberty movement in the process. Shame on Rand Paul for gambling on Romney.