Skip to main content

Have Ron Paul and Mitt Romney already made their "separate peace"?

This is the picture that Mitt Romney
positively has to have come out of
the Tampa GOP Convention.
The political world is abuzz right now with the question about what Congressman Ron Paul and his delegated (pledged and unpledged) are going to do at the Tampa GOP Convention this August.

NPR, for example, thinks it's all about handing the revolution over to Senator Rand Paul in 2016.

The Christian Science Monitor has a list of five things Ron Paul wants from the GOP Convention, including:
1.  To change the soul of the GOP
2.  An orderly show of force on the floor
3.  To irritate Ben Bernanke
4.  To prohibit indefinite detention
5.  To keep the internet wild and free
Other sites have similar takes on the issue, and I'm sure that there is a good bit of truth in all of them.

I'm also fascinated by what's missing:  any discussion of military interventions abroad.

It may just be that I am going to the wrong sites, but I sense a sudden toning down of the insistent rhetoric about military interventions abroad.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm sensing the outlines of a deal here.


Make no mistake about it, I don't think Dr. Paul would change his longheld views on foreign policy.  But in working within the GOP he knows he will have to build coalitions and make deals, and he knows he will have to be realistic about what he can get from Governor Romney without "breaking the bank," so to speak.

Romney can give Paul "the soul of the GOP."  If Romney gets elected, he is the leader of the party, and no matter what dreams the Campaign for Liberty might entertain, he's not going to worry about a primary challenge in four years.

Romney will give Paul his "show of force" on the convention floor.  It is, after all, Romney's best chance to capture at least the tepid support of Dr Paul's followers.

Romney will give Paul his opportunity to discredit and prod Ben Bernanke.  The Governor has already committed to letting Bernanke go if elected, and giving Paul room on economic issues (at least with lip service) is something he can afford.

Romney won't give Paul a prohibition on indefinite detention, but what he will promise is a full and thorough review of all terrorism and Patriot Act-related policies, and he will give the Paulites at least a strong minority voice in that review.  If you thought W got blamed for a lot, wait til you see how the first year of a Romney presidency treats The Big O.

Romney will give in on the internet issues--at least on the surface, and for now.  His corporate backers want concessions, but Romney will argue that they need to wait for a year or two until he is fully entrenched and not so dependent of the Paul movement to give it to them.

And at least one Paul supporter, I'd guess, will get into the cabinet, if not Dr. Paul himself.  He won't give him Treasury, but he might give him Commerce.

What will Romney get in return?  Paul will give Romney an indirect endorsement ("we support the party's nominee"), will not run as a third party candidate, and will not lift a finger for Libertarian Gary Johnson.  Most especially that:  Paul will keep his various Campaigns for Liberty at a distance from the Libertarians, because Johnson (with Paul support, even tacit support) would be able to fundraise and affect swing states--probably against Romney.

Romney will also get an armistice on foreign policy.  In the General Election it is one thing for a Ron Paul or a Gary Johnson to run as "peace" candidates.  Romney has to be able to make President Obama look soft on defense issues.

This is going to be tough against a President who has started four or five wars on his own, and raised the military budget to unprecedented heights, but Romney cannot win if he cannot make Obama look like he's bowing to Muslim potentates and secretly planning to hand over the keys to the Washington Cathedral (or the DC Mormon Temple) to mullahs from Iranistan.

So the deal will be that Romney gives Paul about as much as he could ask for on everything but defense and terrorism, and Paul agrees not to change his views but to shut up unless asked.

That's my prediction for the day.  How well that would play with Paul's supporters, and how many would then defect to Gary Johnson--that's a question for another day.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...