Post Palin, what's the logic behind the GOP's VP pick?

To the extent there is a difference between tabloid journalism and respectable reporting these days, it's probably that tabloid types would refuse to print articles as speculative and as thinly-sourced as those about possible vice-presidential picks. And while looking into the currents that push someone onto the bottom of the ticket is not as thrilling as investigating more literal political bedfellows, it is less likely to bring on lawsuits. And it is about as much fun as I'm going to have, while I wait for results from Michigan and Arizona to roll in.

I spoke to Republicans with no official affiliations to the current candidates or the people they discussed; they all responded to my inquiries under the assumption that Mitt Romney would be at the top of the ticket. As one observer put it: "I'm not sure I'm mentally prepared to consider a Santorum nomination." Another, media consultant JP Freire, said that if I was going to contemplate wild scenarios, why not a brokered convention where Sarah Palin plays a significant role? Or posit a Ron Paul-Chuck Norris ticket?

At this point, all of those playing this game are more likely to get it wrong than right, so maybe we should just cast the roles based on how much fun they'd be to watch and not bother with gaming out the possibilities based on the logic of past nominations. (That is to say, picks based on regional, ideological or stylistic balance as one school: Kennedy and LBJ, Dukakis and Bentsen; and picks based on an echo chamber of ideology and style, on the other: Clinton and Gore, Bush and Cheney.)

On that note, let's look at the pairing with the highest "talked about" to "likely" ratio right now: Romney selecting Rand Paul, Ron Paul's son and junior senator from Kentucky. Toby Harnden of the Daily Mail was the first journalist to put this idea forward, though others have previously speculated on the idea that Ron Paul's campaign has been stalking horse for a future run by Rand. Last week, Rush Limbaugh linked the idea of a Romney-Paul ticket with the observation that the elder Paul hasn't gone after Romney with any fervor (or really at all) – and that Rand said in a speech last Wednesday that he would be "honored" to be considered for Romney's running mate.

A Romney-Paul ticket makes sense as far as ideological and stylistic balance goes, with Rand's libertarianism ringing true for many conservatives where Mitt's moderate past – and more recent swings right – have struck false notes. On the other hand, picking up Kentucky isn't much of a GOP "get". There's also a disturbing air of dynastic politics to a ticket composed of the sons of two prominent politicians. But, then again, the GOP has shown a willingness to go that direction in the past.

Probably the biggest problem with the evidence for a Romney-Paul run is that a lack of attacks on a fellow candidate doesn't mean much. Plenty of VP picks have been vocal opponents of the eventual nominee and still made for a strong joint candidacy (Clinton and Gore, Reagan and GHW Bush, Obama and Biden). You start narrowing the choices to who hasn't attacked whom and you don't get very far, logically. Hey, Michele Bachmann hasn't attacked Romney, either!

But if there was ever a political moment for the GOP to select a vice-president who makes little-to-no sense, this is it. Philip Klein, a senior editorial writer for the Washington Examiner, has a "sacrificial lamb theory". He says that there's an argument – made by those pessimistic about the chances of beating Obama – for the eventual nominee to not "waste one of the good guys this time around". Plenty of politicos on both sides have noted that while the Republicans have a poor slate of actual presidential candidates, they have a deep bench of up-and-coming leaders. Would it be good for the party to burn one of them with the legacy of a failed campaign? Or, as Klein said, "Do you really want Marco Rubio to spend September and October defending Romneycare?"

In this scenario, the presidential nominee – and this logic makes the most sense if, say, Santorum got the nod instead of Romney – would select a politician for whom a loss wouldn't be career-ending or, at the very least, wouldn't be giving up a position in order to accept the nomination. Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, who faces a term limit anyway, fits that description – and doubling down on social conservatism might energize the base toward a not-humiliating finish.

Whoever winds up rounding out the Republican slate, the people I talked to believed that the logic that gave us Sarah Palin is no longer operating the decision system. Klein summed it up this way:

"They went with rock star appeal in 2008 and it was a disaster. Now, maybe, we'll go with a dork who knows what he's doing."