GOP presidential aspirant Gary Bauer held an odd, meandering press conference Wednesday in which he vehemently denied obscure and little-reported rumors that he was having an affair with an attractive, 26-year-old blond female aide.
Indeed, Bauer, who began by introducing his wife of 27 years, Carol, and their three children, insisted that he had “not ever had any physical contact with anybody — in my campaign or out of my campaign — other than my wife.”
Bauer, a Christian activist and the former president of the Family Research Council, said that the “disgusting, outrageous, evil, and sick” rumor had been circulating in Washington for “five or six weeks.” While never mentioning competing candidate Malcolm “Steve” Forbes by name, Bauer and several of his aides hinted strongly that Forbes’ minions had been the ones spreading the story.
“There are people here in the media that have told us in recent days that a particular campaign’s doing this,” Bauer said. “I think it’s a fair guess to suggest that somebody wants to drive me out of the campaign.”
A Forbes aide dismissed Bauer’s charges as groundless. “We did not hear about this thing until we saw it on ‘The Hotline,’” a daily political news and gossip roundup, the Forbes aide says. “The whole thing is silly; it’s absurd. Believe me, we’re not spending any time worrying about Gary’s love life.”
Others were worrying, however. According to a Bauer campaign source, rumors about a personal relationship between Bauer and the aide had been circulating within Bauer’s own campaign ranks for months before the report trickled out into the media on Tuesday. The source said that Bauer has been traveling with her on a daily basis and the two have been so inseparable that it was like a “husband-wife relationship.”
Several times throughout the past few months, the aide said, top advisors have warned Bauer about the office rumors and advised him to distance himself from the woman. The aides worried about the “appearance factor,” the source said — that it didn’t look good for Bauer to be spending so much time with an attractive young woman. According to Washington Post religion writer Hanna Rosin, many other Christian conservatives — like the Rev. James Dobson and the Rev. Billy Graham — have avoided traveling with women for that very reason.
“Bauer told them basically to buzz off — that it was his personal business,” says the Bauer campaign source.
When asked today if aides had ever expressed concerns about Bauer’s travels or closed-door meetings with the aide, Bauer repeatedly dodged the question, saying only that he has “a right to meet with people on my campaign staff … [and] to have strategy meetings.”
Bauer told reporters he decided he had to act once he realized that the rumors had spread throughout the capital. “Everybody I know has heard this report,” he said.
At first, Bauer said, he “didn’t know how to handle it.” He said he had shared the rumor with his family because of “the possibility that in a small town like Washington, D.C., they would hear this from” others.
“This was becoming so widespread, and each time it was passed around it had a different angle to it, or a different permutation to it, and it went directly to me and my wife and my children,” he said. “And the prospect that I was facing is that this sort of rumor-mongering and character assassination would continue forever.”
Those who know both Bauer and the woman insist that the charges are false, even preposterous. “This rumor is a complete lie,” insists Sheila Moloney, executive director of Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum — who once worked for Bauer at the Family Research Council and is “good friends” with the woman.
“I have complete confidence in Gary that he is and has always been a completely faithful husband and father,” Moloney says. “There are people out to destroy him, [but] the one rumor that I never think would stick would be that one.”
The aide, Moloney added, is “a great lady, someone I’m proud to call a friend. And she’s being very strong. If you asked her about this, her first reaction would be to laugh. If it wasn’t so serious — the type of effect this can have on someone’s reputation and someone’s campaign — I think we’d all be laughing.”
Moloney’s steadfast support notwithstanding, the rumor found some all-too-eager believers. “It’s always those religious guys who have the skeletons in their closets,” one former Republican senator stated. “Like [Jimmy] Swaggart or — what was his name? [Jim] Bakker? The ones who are talking about how corrupt society is are usually the ones with things like that going on behind closed doors.”
But regardless of how fast and furious the juice spilled throughout D.C. — and how many lapped it up — Bauer said he was only prompted to act after the rumors trickled to the public through the syndicated radio talk show hosted by Don Imus. On Tuesday, Imus and Newsweek’s Howard Fineman discussed the rumor published in the New York Daily News that an unnamed GOP candidate was having an affair. “Wouldn’t it be great if it were” Bauer? Imus asked.
It was then, Bauer explained at his press conference, that he felt compelled to come forward publicly “to defend my honor and my family … If you don’t deny something, people will think in this town that it’s true. That would be devastating to me … my wife … [and] to my children. I had to put all political calculations aside … I had to think about the four people I love the most.”
Ironically, the media reports of the rumors were nothing compared to what the coverage will now be of his denial. Bauer’s Nixonian speech is reminiscent of the time that former Sen. Bill Scott held a press conference after a magazine named him one of the dumbest members of Congress. Scott denied the silly charges — which no one had taken very seriously until he showed his political ineptitude by holding the press conference.
“This is what I’ve had to wrestle with for weeks,” Bauer said in response to a question about the possibility of giving the rumor more play by hosting the packed press conference. “I feel like I’ve been boxing a ghost … I would like to be president of the United States. But not at the expense of having the record I have as a father and as a husband being undermined by this kind of just-ridiculous charge.”
Recent developments have lent credence to the charge, however, including the exodus of campaign aides from the Bauer ranks. When former Bauer national chairman Charles Jarvis resigned in mid-September, Bauer’s aides started speculating that his departure had something to do with the rumors. Jarvis and Bauer had been friends for 16 years, sharing the same conservative Christian beliefs; before joining the campaign, Jarvis had served as executive vice president of Dobson’s socially conservative Focus on the Family.
In the internal campaign memo announcing his departure, which was released to the media, Jarvis wrote that he was leaving the campaign because he didn’t think Bauer had a chance to win. But some people close to the campaign say that rationale just doesn’t add up.
“Jarvis is a true-believer Christian activist — these are the kinds of people who think ‘pragmatism’ is a dirty word,” says a Bauer campaign source. “For him to say he’s leaving because Bauer doesn’t have a chance to win doesn’t pass the straight-face test.”
Besides Jarvis, media consultant Tom Edmonds has left Bauer’s campaign, as has Bauer’s secretary of 15 years, Betty Barrett. Jarvis, Edmonds and Barrett all declined to comment.
In a chicken-or-the-egg retread, the exodus of aides was one of the factors that brought the wholly unsubstantiated rumor into public discourse. The original New York Daily News report had the unnamed candidate “praying that a former secretary doesn’t go public with her claim that he’s been having an affair with a twentysomething woman.” The item also hinted that many on the unnamed candidate’s staff were “already jumping ship.” It was this point that first brought Bauer’s name into the gossip when Imus asked Fineman: “What candidate has been losing aides?” and Fineman mentioned Jarvis.
Some say that the resignations have more to do with Bauer’s harsh persona than with his sexual persona. “There’s a lot of people who aren’t happy,” says the Bauer campaign source. “It has a lot to do with [Bauer's] personality. He’s just never happy, never satisfied. He doesn’t believe his team is doing enough for him. He says, ‘What’s wrong with these people?’ He can’t grasp that he only has 5 percent name recognition. He’s totally unrealistic.”
Near the end of the 45-minute press conference, Bauer was asked which offended him more, “the rumors about your personal life or some of the more borderline anti-Semitic, racist and xenophobic things [GOP rival] Pat Buchanan has said.” In recent days, GOP candidates Forbes, Elizabeth Dole and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., have all condemned Buchanan’s new book, “A Republic, Not An Empire,” in which he argues that the United States had no compelling reason to fight the Nazis in World War II, and that Jews exert undue influence in American politics.
“Well, the thing that bothers me the most, of course, is any personal attacks on my honor or my character or my family,” Bauer said. “I think any human being would react that way. I’m not going to comment on your characterization of Pat Buchanan’s views. But I have spoken out my entire life on bigotry of all sorts.“
One thing when writing about the Republican Party and the crazy – you can always be certain that it’ll generate new examples. So just when the news that a member of the House accused dozens of Democrats in Congress of being Communists seemed to be going stale, along comes Donald Trump – who is scheduled to appear at a fundraiser with Mitt Romney next week – to spout birther nonsense.
For those of us who believe that there’s something seriously wrong with the Republican Party (and see Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein’s new book; see also my argument that the problem is not about how “conservative” they are, but about their radical style), the big question is whether anything can be done about it. American democracy needs two strong, solid political parties, but currently one of the parties is just a mess – incapable of making coherent policy when it’s in office, and dangerously obstructionist when it’s out of office.
So how can a party recover? I think there are three ways, but two are unfortunately quite unlikely, and the third is at best uncertain.
Some talk about the possibility that the electorate will punish Republicans for their radicalism. Unfortunately, I think that’s unlikely. Note that consecutive blowouts in 2006 and 2008 certainly didn’t make things better. Part of the problem here, too, is that elections generally don’t work that way. It’s true that the impression of ideological extremism can be costly, as Barry Goldwater and George McGovern learned the hard way, but we’re talking here about 2 or 3 percentage points in a presidential election. Direct action by the voters just isn’t enough to do it. After all, as voters, they can only choose between the nominees that they’ve been offered, and if anything voters are more partisan than ever; they’re not likely to defect just because a candidate embraces the crazy, even if they don’t like it, because they would still have a strong preference for that candidate otherwise.
A second possibility is that they’ll wind up with a successful president who sets a strong example of sane conservativism and who is strong enough within the party that he or she can push a lot of the crazies to the fringes and beyond. That could work. Presidents have limited influence in general, but one thing that a popular president can do is to define normality for his or her own party. They can reward some and punish — or at least avoid rewarding — others, creating real and meaningful incentives that can be very different from what came before. The obvious analogy is Dwight Eisenhower’s maneuverings against Joe McCarthy. The problem is that for this strategy to work it takes a skilled and popular president who decides to try it, but Republicans might have to wait a long time before they get another Ike.
So the first method probably can’t work, and the second one is unlikely to happen. That leaves one other possibility: that the Republican coalition itself might demand change. Specifically, that Republican-aligned interest groups – perhaps business, national security or others – might become upset enough with the crazy, or worried enough that the crazy will impede their ability to get things done, that they’ll push to end it. After all, part of the problem with the crazy is that it truly is random; you really never know what nonsense Limbaugh or the Breitbart sites are going to be up to next, and there’s every possibility that it could interfere with groups within the party pursuing their interests. Even worse: Politicians who believe they were elected because their most valuable allies convinced the electorate that the president was a radicalized foreigner are going to be responsive to those supporters, and not to organized party groups. Those groups have enough troubles as it is, since in the current free-for-all campaign finance environment they have to compete with random billionaires who might have all sorts of unorthodox policy preferences.
We’ve seen a little bit of this already. During the healthcare debate, many normally Republican-leaning groups chose to work with the Obama administration and cut their best deal, rather than sticking with the rejectionist GOP. Several companies quit the conservative state lobbying organization ALEC when it became controversial by lobbying for ideological and partisan goals. On the national security side, a break has emerged between the Department of Defense and movement conservatives; both conservatives who care about national security and (on some issues) businesses might choose to stick with the Pentagon. And it’s not quite the same thing, but there’s been a small but steady stream of defectors from the movement.
Nevertheless, something like this would likely play out in nomination politics, with party-aligned groups insisting on candidates who are willing to fight for their interests while rejecting the crazy, and there certainly isn’t any sign of that yet. Will it in 2014 and 2016 if Romney falls short this fall and the crazy gets even worse? I have no idea – but that’s the only path out of this that I can imagine.
House of Representatives Republican leadership (Credit: AP)
Watching the antics of the House GOP, you get the very strong sense that if the class of Republicans elected in 2010 were offered a chance to repeal the Enlightenment, they would leap at the opportunity. The great flowering of science and philosophy that reached critical mass in the 17th century employed human reason to batter away at the dogmas of blind faith. But as far as the Tea Party seems to be concerned, that was just one big wrong turn.
The most recent evidence that the current incarnation of the Republican Party just can’t handle the truth arrived this month when House Republicans voted to get rid of the American Community Survey. The ACS is an annual information-gathering effort that’s part of the U.S. Census. Every year, a randomized sample of 3 million Americans is surveyed for data on “demographic, housing, social and economic characteristics.” In one form or another, the U.S. government has been carrying out similar surveys since 1850 — the current version is the fourth major iteration.
Most sensible people consider the ACS to be extremely useful, the kind of thing that government is really well equipped to carry out. That is not, or at least did not used to be, a partisan statement. Both private and public sector policymakers use ACS data to make important decisions. The federal government allocates $450 billion annually according, in part, to information derived from the ACS. Businesses also consider the ACS vital, which explains why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, rarely a fan of government spending, is opposed to the House action.
Even conservative economists are leery: The clearest evidence that the House GOP has gone completely beyond the pale can be seen in a Businessweek article reporting that representatives of the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute all declared their support for government data gathering. If you don’t understand what’s going on in the U.S. economy on a granular level, you’re flying blind. This should not be a controversial statement.
Even the Wall Street Journal is appalled — although the lead sentence of its editorial criticizing the funding cuts required some remarkable calisthenics before reaching the point of disapproval.
With the contempt of the Washington establishment raining down on House Republicans for voting on principle, every now and then the GOP does something that feeds the otherwise false narrative of political extremism.
Marvelous! In one sentence, the Journal’s editorial writer manages to deny, not once, but twice, the self-evident fact that the current crop of House Republicans occupies the nethermost regions of right-wing extremism, while at the same time admitting that, yeah, well, in this one case they are indeed bonkers.
There’s been no end of media chatter focusing on the importance of the data gathered by the ACS. We’ve also heard how the Constitution specifically enjoins Congress to gather demographic information “in such a manner as they shall by law direct.” And, in fact, the current form of the ACS follows the mandate set forth by a Republican Congress in 2005.
The sponsor of the House measure, the freshman Florida Republican Daniel Webster, claims that ACS questions are too “intrusive” and “the very picture of what’s wrong in D.C.” He seems to be projecting. The very picture of what’s wrong with D.C. is exquisitely captured by daily demonstration that one of our leading political parties is dedicated to the proposition that the less we know about what is going on in our economy or on our planet, the better. If science tells us that one of the consequences of human activity is an overheated planet, then the answer is to defund climate research. If data gathered by the ACS gives us a better understanding of where poverty may be growing as a result of economic policies put into place over the past few decades, best to just to close our eyes and ignore it.
Which brings us back to the 17th century. It’s no stretch to argue that both representative democracy and the Industrial Revolution flourished in large part through the application of Enlightenment principles. The founders of the United States were very much a product of Enlightenment ideals. Looking for an Enlightenment avatar? Think Ben Franklin. Progress is built on the accumulation of knowledge, and ideological rigidity shouldn’t be able to compete against the truth that derives from a better understanding of our universe. And yet that’s where we are today — watching as one of the two major political parties in our country becomes not just more and more distrustful of science, but also opposed to the very notion of information-gathering — and governs accordingly.
One of the most overused metaphors in a writer’s arsenal is the one about “walking and chewing gum at the same time.” As a hiker and Big League Chew enthusiast, I particularly hate this cliché. Nonetheless, I feel it is fitting right now because it so perfectly summarizes the argument being made by Republicans. They now insist that America cannot simultaneously walk the walk on equal rights and also chew economic gum.
In the last week, Colorado was the testing ground for this talking point. At the presidential level, Republican nominee Mitt Romney criticized a Denver television reporter for daring to ask about his position on, among other issues, same-sex marriage. Before restating his opposition, he scoffed at the question, asking: “Aren’t there issues of significance that you’d like to talk about [like] the economy? The growth of jobs? The need to put people back to work?”
At the same time, Colorado’s Republican House Speaker Frank McNulty twice blocked a vote on a bill to legalize civil unions. His rationale? “We should not be spending time on divisive social issues when unemployment remains far too high and [when] far too many Coloradans remain out of work,” he said. Echoing that sentiment, the shadowy Republican front group Compass Colorado financed an automated telephone call telling thousands of voters that the push for civil unions was unacceptable because it is “promoting [a] divisive social agenda over Colorado job creation.”
Obviously, it’s perplexing to see the Republican Party allege that social issues are insignificant and “divisive.” This is, after all, the party whose most recent presidential nominating contest was dominated by attacks on contraception — the same GOP whose politicians have made an art out of riding a “guns, god and gays”-focused agenda to electoral victory.
But while such naked hypocrisy is enraging, the substance of the Republican rhetoric about gay rights is downright offensive. Essentially, conservatives are asserting that we cannot extend equal rights to all Americans and fix the economy. In the process, they are deliberately insinuating that the twin goals are somehow contradictory.
Well, you might ask, do they have a point? History says no. Our country’s story is the story of multitasking — a tale of extending the franchise to women while passing progressive legislation to deal with crushing economic inequality, a tale of both passing civil rights legislation and creating Medicare.
In light of such achievements, would anyone retroactively argue that America should have opposed the campaign to let women vote because the economy was so bad in the early 20th century? Would anyone insist that lawmakers should have halted civil rights legislation in the 1960s because there was a simultaneous need for a War on Poverty? Probably not, because most of us recognize such arguments for what they are: diversionary non sequiturs whose real goal is to preserve institutional bigotry and prejudice.
That’s the same objective of today’s GOP when it comes to rights for same-sex couples. For proof, just consider the abruptness of the shift: the Republican Party that spent the last decade insisting that we should simultaneously cut taxes, prosecute foreign wars and fight to limit a woman’s right to choose an abortion now suddenly says we can’t even discuss equal rights because of a recession.
The language changed not because the new “can’t walk and chew gum” mantra makes sense (seriously — would any sane person really claim that a bad economy justifies continued persecution of lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people?). It changed because the cause of equal rights is involved. And, clearly, that cause is what today’s Republicans are now most committed to stopping — no matter how much their flawed logic indicts their credibility.
David Sirota is a best-selling author of the new book "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.
More David Sirota.
Yes, Jon Huntsman should definitely run for mayor of New York, because I never tire of watching Jon Huntsman get rejected by voters. The best part of a Jon Huntsman campaign is when his well-heeled supporters very sincerely and tragically argue that the fact that no one wants to vote for Jon Huntsman is a sign that the Republic itself is in peril. They would get so sad and melodramatic when he got 10 percent of the vote.
Now, there is no evidence that Jon Huntsman is planning for run for mayor of New York City, but one of his annoying daughters tossed this one out there last night:
Trying to convince dad @JonHuntsman to run for mayor of NYC. Thoughts? #whynot?
Of course, now that this idea is floating around, very rich and well-connected morons just might set about trying very hard to make it a reality. Jon Huntsman is a creature of the sort of oblivious center-right rich folk who bankrolled the hilarious failed New York campaigns of Harold Ford Jr. and Reshma Saujani. They would like very much to see another one of their class be the mayor of their city, after Bloomberg ends his term (if he ends his term). The Republicans have essentially no candidate. (I still wouldn’t put it past Police Commissioner and professional harasser-of-minorities Ray Kelly to mount a run, but at the moment he’s sounding disinclined to.) And Jon Huntsman is the sort of nationally prominent “independent” candidate all three major New York newspapers would love (the Daily News would love him the most, obviously, but the Post would love him because he is secretly not actually that moderate).
Jon Huntsman — whose tax plan called for the complete elimination of taxes on capital gains and dividends, as well as the elimination of the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Reagan-era tax benefit for poor people that used to be the sole form of welfare that conservatives supported, and who also wholeheartedly supported the Paul Ryan plan to fix the deficit by eliminating Medicare and not making rich people pay taxes — was of course beloved by the press and labeled a reasonable moderate when he ran for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. He was mistaken for a political moderate primarily because he does not believe that God created cavemen and dinosaurs at the same time, roughly 4,000 years ago. Huntsman, who supports the complete repeal of Dodd-Frank and is strictly antiabortion and anti-gay marriage and anti-healthcare reform and pro-gun, is now essentially a symbol of the dignity and sagacity of the “radical center,” even though he is a conservative Republican.
So obviously New Yorkers would be thrilled to vote for this guy. I endorse this.
Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene
More Alex Pareene.
Ron Paul and Rand Paul (Credit: AP/Charles Dharapak)
So Ron Paul says he is going to stop actively campaigning, but his supporters will continue to rack up delegates by storming state conventions. What will he do with these delegates? That is still unclear. (Barter them for gold?) What is the point of this strategy, exactly? Also unclear, but the Daily Beast’s Ben Jacobs today says it’s part of a “sneaky maneuver” to help his son Rand out. Ron will continue to consolidate power but will not appear to be actively sabotaging the party’s nominee. Dave Weigel says the maneuver is less sneaky and barely a maneuver: He doesn’t want it to be a huge embarrassment when he loses Kentucky, the state his son represents in the Senate.
Interestingly, though perhaps not surprisingly, Paul declined to endorse Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, the former New Mexico governor who endorsed Paul in 2008. Johnson was, formerly, the Republican presidential candidate all those young “liberal” college stoner Ron Paul supporters should have gone with if they’d wanted to support a candidate who believed strongly in liberty but who wasn’t a racist Alex Jonesian conspiracy-mongering goldbug loon. But Johnson had “extensive executive experience” instead of a blimp and a sweet logo, so he did not win over many Paul fanatics.
Ron Paul’s strategy seems to be a gradual takeover of the Republican Party itself, instead of attempting to build a Libertarian alternative to the GOP. I think he’ll find that he can get the party to happily sign on, at least rhetorically, to his fiscal message, as they continue to ignore his popular and populist isolationism and his eminently agreeable but politically untenable positions on criminal justice and civil liberties, forever. The party, in other words, will continue to co-opt whatever they find electorally useful about the Paul phenomenon, as the Tea Party movement stole his iconography and messaging wholesale while attaching it to the same religious-right/nativist sentiment that has driven the party’s activist base for decades.
But Paul thinks the future lies with his son Rand, who shares many of his father’s enthusiasms and beliefs while also appearing to be more acceptable to the mainstream. Various Paul allies and a few other Republicans strongly suggest that Rand is gearing up for a 2016 run; which would mean, of course, that they expect Romney to lose, but that they need to not appear to be rooting for Romney to lose.
The problem is that what makes Rand Paul more acceptable to the mainstream of the Republican Party is what makes him more repellent than his father. Take, for example, Rand Paul’s funny joke this last weekend about Barack Obama and gay marriage.
The president recently weighed in on marriage. And, you know, he said his views were evolving on marriage. Call me cynical but I wasn’t sure that his views on marriage could get any gayer. Now it did kind of bother me, though, that he used the justification for it in a biblical reference. He said the biblical Golden Rule caused him to be for gay marriage …
And I’m like: What version of the Bible is he reading? It’s not the King James version. It’s not the New American Standard. It’s not the New Revised version. I don’t know what version he is getting it from.
Haha Barack Obama is so gay, he should read a Bible for once. Libertarianism!
Nick Gillespie, of the libertarian Reason Magazine, does not get this joke. The crowd, at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition, did seem to get it, or at least they appreciated it. But Rand sounds very different when he speaks to Iowa conservatives than he does when interviewed by Gillespie and Matt Welch. (His address received a nice notice from Robert Costa of the National Review, who did not mention his funny joke.)
While Rand Paul may be, as Gillespie says, the most libertarian senator, he is also not an actual libertarian, as demonstrated by his support for anti-constitutional anti-immigrant legislation and his very vocal antiabortion position. He is also a dumb lout, and I tend to think that having the Senate’s most libertarian member be a dumb lout is not actually that good for the Libertarian movement. When he makes explicitly libertarian arguments, he makes them dumbly. When he goes all anti-gay talk-radio bigot culture warrior, which he does increasingly frequently, he does so dumbly. (If he wants to be a mainstream politician and presidential contender, it was certainly dumb to appear — more than once — on the radio program of Truther/Birther/New World Orderer/every-other-conspiracy promoter Alex Jones, but for some reason he almost entirely escaped mainstream press scrutiny for these appearances.) While I don’t feel much affection for Ron Paul, he seems both significantly smarter and leagues more principled than his son the senator.
If the “electable” face of libertarianism is a fratty anti-gay, anti-choice nitwit like Rand Paul, I will stick with socialism, thank you. And I wonder if the Paul family’s plan is to promote “liberty” or to promote the Paul family.
Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene
More Alex Pareene.
Donald Trump (Credit: Reuters/David Moir) 
House of Representatives Republican leadership (Credit: AP) 
Mitt Romney (Credit: AP/Carlos Osorio) 
Ron Paul and Rand Paul (Credit: AP/Charles Dharapak) 
