Monday, February 27, 2012

Rand Paul as a Potential Anti-Dick Cheney

Judging from the comments in posts below about a Romney-Rand Paul ticket, many libertarians are against such a ticket. I think this is ignoring recent history.

A rambling president with no strong principles coupled with a vice-president with strong principles can result in a very powerful vice-president, for good or bad.  Most recently, the George Bush-Dick Cheney administration can serve as an example. Cheney did not take the vice-presidency to be GW's lap dog. He took it to run policy (for evil purposes though it might have been)

Since Mitt Romney blows in the wind on almost any issue, a strong principled, libertarian oriented vice-president could accomplish a lot. He could be a sort of anti-Dick Cheney, a man who could reorient the country back toward freedom and, also, away from foreign entanglements.

Rand Paul would not be a Joe Biden or Al Gore type vice-president, relegated to attending funerals of second tier global leaders. A Mitt Romney-Rand Paul administration would get real interesting real fast.


  1. I was talking with a guy over the weekend, who has an e-mail address, and he was saying that Rand as VP is not out of the question.

    A "transfer" all of Ron Paul's loyal fans to Romney voters still seems unlikely to me. But it might be some kind of fallback plan for the Pauls.

    Same guy also confided that Rand is not really neocon-ish, voting for Iran sanctions and uncommitted on the drug war. It is just an act, and he is really 100% Ron Paul-ish.

  2. Sorry Robert, a Paul VP slot isn't going to work. You pinpointed the reason why in your post:

    Cheney did not take the vice-presidency to be GW's lap dog. He took it to run policy (for evil purposes though it might have been)

    You're right about Cheney having evil purposes (and that's a nice way of saying it - I think he's just evil himself). That evil was backed by big money and big power. Paul, being good (he's for freedom and liberty), isn't going to have that big money and big power (er, well, if you discount God). Therefore, he'll be relegated to attending funerals.

    Besides there's NOTHING that Romney will do that Paul can support. There's no partnership there. They are, when you come down to it, ideological enemies. You can't make a deal with the devil and keep your soul.

  3. You're missing that Rand has no problem leaving "bombing Iran" on the negotiating table in our dealings with them. That makes him similar to Cheney in that regard.

    He's too far from his father philosophically in my mind. VP is a harmless position that requires the President to be malleable to his suggestions.

    While Willard is malleable to public opinion, what he'll actually do in office once he's firmly ahold of power is anyone's guess.

    Rand as VP would do virtually nothing for the cause of Liberty fact I'd suggest it would hurt the cause be distracting those drawn to the cult of personality that right now consider themselves Libertarians as opposed to those who are drawn to ideas.

    It'd sure be great for the GOP/Mittster though, would it? They get that "party unity" they are looking for so badly.

  4. I won't pull the lever for Romney because it will mean blood is on my hands if Romney declares executive war on Iran, Syria, the world, etc. However, if the Rand VP also comes with a guarantee of Napolitano as Attorney General and Jim Grant as Fed chairman, that gives me some assurance that government's hands will soon be tied, and I will, extremely relucantly, cast a vote for Romney.

  5. I agree 100%. This is the one and only reason I would even consider voting for Romney and the only situation in which his soft core is a benefit.

    But if I don't see the name "Paul" on that ticket I won't bother and the GOP will get what it deserves.

  6. Cheney had the power of the main stream media and the military industrial banker complex behind him...+ bush was the son of a CIA head(kinda simplistic to think he was not executing his goals effectively).

    IOW not buying it Wenzel...and I will never vote for Romney, even if Murray Rothbard himself comes back and Romney invites him to be the VP candidate(about as realistic as Paul playing nice and pretending to be a warmongerer along with Romney for an entire campaign).

  7. You're making a big assumption here. You're assuming Willard's hangers on don't get in his face to stop Paul from pushing forward anything good, which is more likely to happen.

    Bush and Cheney's interests were aligned, something that would not happen in a WIllard/Rand administration. It would be correct to say that Cheney did not take a backseat role, but Bush's advisors/hangers on tended to also be Cheney's.

    Rand could maybe influence Willard at the margin, but that is all, only at the margin. He wouldn't be able to drive stuff through like Cheney.

  8. I do not agree at all RW. If the media can ignore Biden and Gore, they can just as easily ignore Rand.

  9. Yeah, but at heart, Romney is a neo-con on foreign policy and Keynesian economically. He'll surround himself with like-minded advisors. Would Ron/Rand work and speak for things that are 180 degrees different? I don't think that would work well at all...not that I'd want a Romney presidency to "work well" in the first place.

    Still, I don't know. Is having a 2nd in command that constantly clashes with the leader the best way for the liberty movmement to shine? Or will it just be an ongoing drama that only gets headlines and media drama?

  10. "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Nietzsche

  11. The fact that "Mitt Romney blows in the wind on almost any issue" doesn't mean he is willing to support any opinion. Like most politicians, and all weather vanes, he always points to power.

    The people Romney hopes will make him president (and they are not the voters) have no use for any Paul. The only use Romney could have for Rand Paul would be as life insurance.

    I don't believe that the people who actually run the country care who you vote for as long it is one of their choices.

  12. I'm against all tickets. Stop voting.

  13. The problem with the Bush-Cheney comparison is that while Cheney had tremendous influence on policy, he ultimately served his good lieutenant role and faithfully backed all administration policy. This would be impossible for Paul the elder and difficult for Rand.

  14. Dick Cheney took the job because there was a solid block of crazy christians, defence industry hacks, Isreal firsters and corruptable spineless weasels able to do his bidding.
    If W had brought a solid block of Libertarians into government in key places, well he wouldn't be the VP.

  15. "Since Mitt Romney blows in the wind on almost any issue..."

    Definitely not my read on Romney. His flip-flopping is part of the show and I'm confident that once in office the guy will blow in only one direction... the one he's told to. And I also have little doubt Rand would be told to go sit in the truck for four years. He'll be disappeared one way or another.

    Lest we forget, the real power does not sit in the Oval Office...

  16. I think that is largely wishful thinking on your part, Mr. Wenzel. I can see Romney taking Rand Paul on board as VP to co-opt Ron Paul's followers, but I am extremely dubious about Romney actually allowing Paul any real authority once elected, and I'm sure Romney's owners at Goldman Sachs would be against it

  17. You're not understanding the real issue. Dick Cheney didn't have power just because he was a forceful VP. He had power because of the issues he sided with. He had power because the issues he sided with had big money interests behind them.

    Ron Paul's issues do not have big money interests behind them. And because of that, never mind Rand Paul as VP, even RON Paul as VP would be completely useless. He would get nothing done.

    Romney is a flip flopper when it benefits him. He flip flops for votes and money. It's not because he's unprincipled that a Rand Paul VP would be able to wield power; it's because he's unprincipled that a Rand Paul VP would NEVER be able to wield power.

    I hope you realize how foolish you're being by promoting this nonsense. A Romney-Paul ticket would destroy everything Ron Paul has worked so hard toward. The freedom movement would become completely co-opted by the Republican Party, rather than the Republican Party being co-opted by the freedom movement. Our biggest chance at liberty will turn into the worst situation for liberty in our history. Rand Paul will be speaking about freedom as freedom is being taken away. Just as Ronald Reagan's presidency in reality set the freedom movement back, a Romney-Paul ticket would do the same, but perhaps exponentially worse.

  18. If Rand is really a libertarian, he would be far more effective staying in the Senate and promoting pro-liberty legislation. As VP he would accomplish nothing.

  19. The US is not used to this, but in Europe and I think Canada, where there are parliamentary democracies, when different parties can share power through coalitions.

    In the US it seems there are two parties, but after this Ron Paul campaign, the republican party in fact, is fractured into two but still operating as one party.

    So a power sharing agreement can be reached between the Paul campaign and Romney but this shouldn't be relegated to just VP positions. Also cabinet positions should be negotiated before hand. The Paul Party will of course be a junior partner, but they can negotiate and get VP plus 3 or 4 important cabinet positions.

    This may hurt the chances of Paul campaign in taking over the Republican party but how realistic is that goal?

    1. how realistic is the money goal of making us pay 100% of our income as interest on the debt built up by corrupt politicians?

      GOP/MSM/Dems are still in control now...but they will fall if awareness keeps growing and we don't compromise our way into slavery.

  20. Dick Cheney represented entrenched power, the 'shadow government,' the military industrial complex, etc.

    Romney hasn't waffled on anything of substance. He's packaging himself differently.

    Rand Paul policy would threaten all of Romney's (and politicians in general) backers. Even in some parallel universe where Romney did suddenly turn into a libertarian, congress, and the courts, would suddenly become concerned with the out-of-control power of the executive and dial back all the powers Bush claimed.

    This is so obvious I have a hard time believing you sincerely believe that a VP Rand Paul could be successfully transform Romney into an effective vehicle for libertarian policy.

    Maybe you're desperately trying to rationalize men you have great respect for sacrificing their principles in exchange for the promise of political power.

  21. Constitutionally, the Vice President has no real power or influence. Romney's not going to delegate any power to Paul. We all know this. Rand Paul being one of the few elected officials who actually has read and understands the Constitution knows this. He has much more power and influence remaining in the Senate.