Paul/Bachman 2012

[amy31416]

Okay, so Bachmann is out.

Who did you have in mind?

I like Mary Ruwart quite a bit, but she has zero recognition outside of libertarian circles. Perhaps Medina? Still have a low-recognition factor outside of Texas (and this forum.)

 

[acptulsa]

I like Mary Ruwart quite a bit, but she has zero recognition outside of libertarian circles. Perhaps Medina? Still have a low-recognition factor outside of Texas (and this forum.)

Which Paul? Unfortunately, Ron Paul picking Medina would be unconstitutional per Amendment XII. Same state.

Edit: Or, at the very least, Texas electors wouldn't be able to vote for them.

 

[pauladin]

I like Herman Cain. He is gaining tremendous traction in the conservative base and is an excellent debater who would humuliate Biden. He has a solid resume in the private sector which could help shore up the business vote. Plus I absolutely hate it when people use identity politics, but being black might leak a little more of the minority vote to our ticket and even the smallest bit could make a huge difference.

He has all the upsides of Bachmann (fiery, loved in the tea party/conservative base, great speaking skills, not just another "white Southern Republican") without all the downsides (seen as really kooky, possibly the only person more alienating than Palin).

nice try, herman cain.

 

[amy31416]

Which Paul? Unfortunately, Ron Paul picking Medina would be unconstitutional per Amendment XII. Same state.

Q101. "Exactly where in the Constitution does it say that the President and Vice President cannot be from the same state? In the 12th amendment the wording leads me to think that the electors and the candidates cannot be from the same state."

A. The Constitution doesn't say that they cannot be from the same state. However, the 12th Amendment does say that electors may not vote for a President from their state and a Vice President also from their state. This issue came up in the 2000 presidential campaign when Texas Governor George W. Bush chose fellow Texas resident Richard Cheney to be his running mate. Cheney, who had served in Congress as a Representative from Wyoming, quickly changed his legal residence back to Wyoming to avoid the possible conflict for electors from Texas. Court challenges to Cheney's change of residency were denied.

It is unlikely that two people from the same state would ever be nominated by a major political party. It is constitutionally possible however. If it ever came to pass, the party that won the ticket's state would likely suggest to the electors that their votes for the President go to the presidential nominee and that the votes for the Vice President be given in honor of a party official. Electors in all other states, as mentioned above, would be free to vote for both of the party's nominees.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a6.html

 

[acptulsa]

Ha ha. Got my edit up before your post.

Texas Republicans can win without Texas? I don't know 'bout that...

 

[amy31416]

Ha ha. Got my edit up before your post.

Texas Republicans can win without Texas? I don't know 'bout that...

It's my understanding that most of this is speculation and throwing ideas out, not cold, hard reality.

 

[acptulsa]

Considering only a nominated candidate needs a running mate, this is beyond premature. But, you know, optimism is a good thing.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I can't believe some of the suggestions in this thread. Please excuse my insolence, but I can't understand why so-called Ron Paul supporters would think Michele Bachmann or Haley Barbour (really??) would make a good pairing with Dr. Paul. I thought the idea of a Ron Paul candidacy was to say to the country that we're tired of the same old, same old! There are better choices: Judge Napolitano, Gary Johnson, Peter Schiff, just to name 3 off the top of my head.

I don't think there is any point in worrying about beating Obama just to put another neoconservative in the VP chair. That's a sure-fire way to continue the same mistakes we've been making for decades, or even a couple of centuries.

 

[acptulsa]

Traditionally, the VP choice is one of attracting voters who wouldn't otherwise be hot on the main candidate. The job itself is pretty meaningless unless your running mate gets shot, or you're Cheney the Dubya Puppetmaster. And, really, I don't see a Paul letting his VP dictate any policy.

So, I don't favor a 'more of the same' carbon copy of Paul for a running mate. That said, I sure want someone who can and will tell the establishment to shove it if need be. I like the Pauls, and would hate to see anything happen to one of them.

 

[sailingaway]

There is probably too much overlap. If we are going to go that way I'd say Rand, actually. But the bit about 'trust', I don't know if I agree with. She is who she is, and you like it or don't. I don't think she's hiding anything.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I'm concerned that it negates everything Dr. Paul stands for to choose a running mate who stands against Ron's principles (antiwar, pro-Constitutionalist, pro-market, etc.) Understand that if Ron Paul even GETS the nomination, that's a pretty big statement that America is tired of the status quo....therefore, it should signal that it's time to continue rejecting said status quo in the form of neoconservative VP candidates. I wouldn't want to see Ron compromise the very principles that attract me to him in the first place.

 

[Krugerrand]

Traditionally, the VP choice is one of attracting voters who wouldn't otherwise be hot on the main candidate. The job itself is pretty meaningless unless your running mate gets shot, or you're Cheney the Dubya Puppetmaster. And, really, I don't see a Paul letting his VP dictate any policy.

So, I don't favor a 'more of the same' carbon copy of Paul for a running mate. That said, I sure want someone who can and will tell the establishment to shove it if need be. I like the Pauls, and would hate to see anything happen to one of them.

You want somebody like John Mackey
Some excerpts from wikipedia:

John Mackey (born August 15, 1953) is an American businessman. He is the CEO of Whole Foods Market which he had co-founded in 1980. Named the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year in 2003, Mackey is a strong supporter of free market economics. He is one of the most influential advocates in the movement for organic food.

Whole Foods was the first grocery chain to set standards for humane animal treatment. Mackey was influenced by animal rights activist, Lauren Ornelas, who criticized Whole Foods' animal standards regarding ducks at a shareholder meeting in 2003. Mackey gave Ornelas his email address and they corresponded on the issue. He studied issues related to factory farming and decided to switch to what he considers veganism. He advocates tougher animal standards.

In 2006, Mackey announced he was reducing his salary to $1 a year, would donate his stock portfolio to charity, and set up a $100,000 emergency fund for staff facing personal problems. He wrote: "I am now 53 years old and I have reached a place in my life where I no longer want to work for money, but simply for the joy of the work itself and to better answer the call to service that I feel so clearly in my own heart."

In a debate in Reason magazine among Mackey, Milton Friedman, and T. J. Rodgers, Mackey said that he is a free market libertarian. He said that he used to be a "democratic socialist" in college. As a beginning businessman, he was challenged by workers of not paying them enough and customers of charging too high prices, at a time when he was hardly making enough to continue. He began to take a more capitalistic worldview, and discovered the works of Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Friedman. Mackey is an admirer of author Ayn Rand.

Mackey opposed the public health insurance option that ultimately did not become part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Mackey thinks a better plan would be allowing consumers to purchase health insurance across state lines and use a combination of health savings accounts and catastrophic insurance, as Whole Foods does. Mackey's statement that Americans do not have an intrinsic right to healthcare led to calls for a boycott of Whole Foods Market from the Progressive Review and from numerous groups on Facebook.

John Mackey is known for his strong anti-union views, having once compared unions to herpes in that "it won't kill you, but it's very unpleasant and will make a lot of people not want to be your lover."

Whole Foods Market is one of only two non-union Fortune 500 companies listed by Forbes among the "25 Best Companies to Work For" in 2005.

 

[acptulsa]

He does look good, doesn't he?

 

[cajuncocoa]

Not bad at all! See, now that's a much better choice than Bachmann!!

 

[acptulsa]

Not bad at all! See, now that's a much better choice than Bachmann!!

And that's an understatement.

 

[sailingaway]

I like Mary Ruwart quite a bit, but she has zero recognition outside of libertarian circles. Perhaps Medina? Still have a low-recognition factor outside of Texas (and this forum.)

I like Ruwart, too. Not as much as Ron, but there's that same trust thing. I trust her to have the people's best interests in mind. None of the other libertarians jumped out at me like that.

 

[The Binghamton Patriot]

Pat Buchanan or Mackey sounds promising.
Go Pat Go!

 

[Krugerrand]

Pat Buchanan or Mackey sounds promising.
Go Pat Go!

In general I'm a fan of Pat Buchanan. Sadly, I don't think he'll help bring in the independent voter. I don't see him helping to win the election.

 

[brandon]

Mackey is certainly promising, and so is Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, a self described libertarian.


Although I doubt either of them would be up for it.

 

[JamesButabi]

Would loooooove to see Mary Ruwart