No law against that. Nominees have to have advise and consent of Senate anyway. Recall Reagan promised to run with (liberal) Richard Schweiker as his VP in 1976 and he wasn't even the nominee yet.
Reagan's doing that in 1976 caused me to favor Phil Crane (R-Illinois) over Reagan in the primaries in 1980, and my heart sunk when he selected GHWBush (Mr. "Supply-side economics = Voodoo economics") over Crane - a natural Reagan ally for VP.
Reagan clearly knew more about what he had to do to win than I did back then.
He was no less conservative for having selected GHWBush than if he'd selected Crane. He just might not have won with Crane. On balance, 1981 - 1988 my brand of conservatism advanced, and at the end, GHWBush could only win by running on Reaganism.
GHWBush lost when he strayed back into his patrician nature and into "Read my HIPS" territory. And the reason GHWBush had to deal with (D) house and Senate is because conservatives got fat and lazy in 1986, when we lost the Senate -- and we were all so content to just leave it all up to Reagan to do the heavy lifting.
Like I said the Presidency is not the office of elected "king." President is Q-back, his cabinet is his team. WE conservatives in the trenches are his foot-soldiers.
Romney's rhetoric has been "24-7 Reagan" in this primary. It's up to us not to sit on our collective conservative asses, buy to continue to hold Romney's feet to the fire.
FReegards!
