What would it take for a Ron Paul endorsement of Romney?

[tpfkaw]

I'd say:

Either put Rand on the ticket, or the following concessions:

Prime-time speaking slot for either Ron or Rand

Include the following in the platform:

Support of Austrian economics
End Federal Reserve and/or repeal legal tender laws and/or reintroduce gold standard
All legislation must be constitutional
All wars must be declared by Congress
Timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan
Support for 10th Amendment rights
No indefinite detention of civilians
Repeal USA PATRIOT Act

[CatoMinor]

I could see Rand getting a nice speaking spot and the 10th amendment rights being added.

[tpfkaw]

I could see Rand getting a nice speaking spot and the 10th amendment rights being added.

Which would probably earn silence from Ron but no endorsement.

[Sewer]

So hell freezing over then?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Romney already uses 10th Amendment as a shield for his Romneycare. And he is starting to use it as part of a broader welfare strategy if the last two debates are any guide.

Audit the Fed, prime time slots (some some restrictions on speech content), reduction in spending on the "War on Drugs" and greater embrace of the 10th Amendment on more issues are possible. Is it enough, though?

[tpfkaw]

Romney already uses 10th Amendment as a shield for his Romneycare. And he is starting to use it as part of a broader welfare strategy if the last two debates are any guide.

Audit the Fed, prime time slots (some some restrictions on speech content), reduction in spending on the "War on Drugs" and greater embrace of the 10th Amendment on more issues are possible. Is it enough, though?

Probably not (I actually deliberately left out War on Drugs stuff, as it's not something I see him pushing hard on and it's probably the medicine rank-and-file GOPhers would enjoy the least).

In terms of likelihood of actually finding their way into the GOP platform, I'd rank what I listed and a few others as

1. Audit the Fed, criticism of inflationary policies. (95% chance of ending up in final platform w/ Romney as nominee)
2. 10th Amendment plank (90%)
3. "Constitutional legislation" plank (didn't they even introduce a House resolution to this effect?) (80%)
3.5. Positive mention of Hayek (66%)
4. Positive mention of Austrian economics (50%)
5. "Tough" anti-Fed language (40%)
6. Wars must be declared by Congress (30%)
7. Afghanistan timetable (25%)
8. No indefinite detention (20%)
9. Repeal PATRIOT (15%)
10. Anti-"drug war" language (1%)

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

[tmthforu94]

There's going to be some sort of backroom deal (Leadership poisition for Rand, cabinet appointment, potential 2020 endorsement), I think. Additionally, I think Ron Paul will get a primetime speaking slot, while Rand also gets a nice spot, though not primetime.

Personally, as weird as this sounds, I actually think Paul will endorse Romney this cycle, or do a co-endorsement of him and Johnson. I just think somethings really weird about how respectful the Romney and Paul campaigns have been towards each other.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I don't see Paul endorsing Romney. The GOP establishment wants nothing to do with the factions within the Tea Party that they hold no power over. He's gonna endorse Johnson, Wayne Allen Root or the Constituition Party canidate.

[pbrower2a]

Threat of a third-degree burn?

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Lots and lots of platform changes, and a generous speaking slot.

I figure even if Paul only does mediocre compared to Romney, Romney has no reason to alienate Paul's supporters by refusing to incorporate less objectionable elements (How many Republicans would dislike being tough on the Fed and pushing for less regulations?). Paul could probably push Romney harder if he managed to get lots and lots of delegates, maybe even getting him to promise some variation of Paul's trillion dollar cut plan with more of a timetable for withdrawing troops.

I suspect the reason Paul is playing nice with Romney (besides the potential Mormon support for Rand in 2016/2020) is because Romney is such a mercenary that he'd probably buckle to whatever Paul proposed depending on how much support Paul was shown to have. Were the US to be swept in a torrent of libertarian thinking, Romney would doubtless be trashing the Fed, opposing the wars, and supporting drug legalization with the best of them. Paul performing exceptionally well in the caucuses would be the light version of that and would encourage Romney to accept some platform changes.

Alternatively, his son as VP would more likely than not seal the deal.

[Torie]

Rand is not going to be on a Mitt ticket. That is simply ludicrous. He, inter alia,  is not at the moment remotely qualified to be POTUS, and he has his own baggage, as well as his own rather zany ideas, although not as zany as pere Paul's. He is not ready for the major leagues. And Paul will endorse Romney, period. Whatever MItt does to play nice to him will be relatively minor. Of that I am confident. I would be shocked if Paul does something to seal Obama's re-election, which may be one of the major reasons Paul is playing nice to Mittens. He sees the writing on the wall.

[Oakvale]

Torie is, of course, absolutely right. Paul's endorsement does not carry enough weight for him to be able to extract concessions from a guy who's likely cruised to the nomination without any serious opposition.

And just LOL at the idea that Paul could have the leverage to get his son on the ticket.

[tpfkaw]

Well, if Ron Paul supporters are a cult who do whatever he says, then clearly he does have leverage.  You can't have it both ways.

[Oakvale]

Well, if Ron Paul supporters are a cult who do whatever he says, then clearly he does have leverage.  You can't have it both ways.

If we're assuming that Paul won't run third-party so as not to jeopardise his spawn's political career - not that I think a Paul third-party run would have as much impact as people seem to think - then Paul really hasn't got any leverage at all.

The only scenario in which Paul would be able to extract any concessions whatsoever is in the extremely unlikely event of a brokered convention in which he holds the balance of power. And even then I'm not sure that there wouldn't be some kind of backroom deal to prevent Paul from having any influence.

Most of the voters who are swinging to Paul (i.e. not his hardcore base) will ultimately vote Romney or whoever's the nominee. Paul's base will vote the same way they did in 2008.

[Free Palestine]

Romney would have to run for governor in a libertarian-ish state.

[TheGlobalizer]

I'd ballpark the likelihood of Paul endorsing anyone at about 2%.

I think he'll just "support the party's nominee".  Rand might endorse.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Well, if Ron Paul supporters are a cult who do whatever he says, then clearly he does have leverage.  You can't have it both ways.

If we're assuming that Paul won't run third-party so as not to jeopardise his spawn's political career - not that I think a Paul third-party run would have as much impact as people seem to think - then Paul really hasn't got any leverage at all.

The only scenario in which Paul would be able to extract any concessions whatsoever is in the extremely unlikely event of a brokered convention in which he holds the balance of power. And even then I'm not sure that there wouldn't be some kind of backroom deal to prevent Paul from having any influence.

Most of the voters who are swinging to Paul (i.e. not his hardcore base) will ultimately vote Romney or whoever's the nominee. Paul's base will vote the same way they did in 2008.

'Cept this year, Gary Johnson is running as a libertarian. If Paul endorsed Johnson, Romney would be in a bit of trouble.

Also, Paul's base didn't vote McCain in 2008, some of it did but then a lot of it voted 3rd party or Obama.