President Ron Paul Vice President options

[emazur]

If you want a military guy, Colonel Douglas MacGregor or Col. Lawrence Wilkerson seem like decent choices, at least on the surface.

 

[nbhadja]

The VP must be anti-establishment. You guys are bringing up names like Douglas Macgregor and Jim Demint, who supported the Iraqi war which is an instant disqualification. Jim Demint has criticized Obama to not do enough against terrorism....which is another instant disqualification.

Lawrence Wilkerson passes my eye test on first glance though. We would have to see what he thinks about the fed reserve though.

Personally I would like Rand Paul. He is the most trust worthy and is as consistent as Ron Paul......but not sure if that would work out in the voters minds.
If the VP choice is named prior to the Republican primaries ending, it would be important for the VP choice to be pro-life otherwise it would harm his chances of winning the Republican nomination.

 

[Zap!]

I like Mike Lee. He's only 40 and the best we have in the Senate besides Rand Paul.

 

[cindy25]

Walter Jones could be a possibility.

but I think a case could be made after Iowa but before SC to pick Jenny Sanford, and win the SC primary. she is very political, managed both of Terry's campaigns. and Terry Sanford was considered a Libertarian when in congress

 

[emazur]

The VP must be anti-establishment. You guys are bringing up names like Douglas Macgregor and Jim Demint, who supported the Iraqi war which is an instant disqualification.

Didn't know Macgregor supported Iraq. I just checked an old PBS interview though and at least he said he never supported the war on grounds that they might have WMD, and he seems to believe in blowback. But yeah I'd cross him off the list now

 

[vita3]

Col Lawrence Wilkerson is an interesting choice

 

[Created4]

Didn't know Macgregor supported Iraq. I just checked an old PBS interview though and at least he said he never supported the war on grounds that they might have WMD, and he seems to believe in blowback. But yeah I'd cross him off the list now

I'm not so sure we should cross him off the list. He is a regular on the Judge's show, and seems solidly libertarian and pro Ron Paul. If he admits Iraq was a mistake, it could give him even more credibility. But is a colonel a high enough rank for VP?

Again, let's please not take anyone out of the House or Senate. They will be needed there.

 

[Jingles]

At this point I've pretty much have just come to the conclusion that I will stop worrying about VP. Ron will make the right decision when the time comes.

 

[Created4]

Col Lawrence Wilkerson is an interesting choice

Indeed! I just read his bio on Wikipedia. From South Carolina. Former chief of staff for Colin Powell. I think he is an example of someone who believed in the invasion of Iraq based on false evidence, and has since denounced it and admitted it was a mistake, can be an asset:

"In a 2006 interview Wilkerson said that the speech Powell made before the United Nations on February 5, 2003—which laid out a case for war with Iraq—included falsehoods of which Powell had never been made aware. He said, "My participation in that presentation at the UN constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council."[6] Wilkerson said in 2011 that his preparing of the presentation was "probably the biggest mistake of my life", he regrets it, and that he regrets not resigning over it."

On Iran:

Wilkerson said in an interview on BBC Newsnight, January 17, 2007, that an Iranian offer to help stabilise Iraq after the American invasion, was positively received at the State Department, yet turned down by Dick Cheney.[8][9] The reported offer consisted of help in stabilizing Iraq, cutting ties with Hezbollah and greater transparency in its nuclear program in return for lifting sanctions and dismantling the Mujahedeen-e Khalq, an organisation working to overthrow the Iranian government. When this offer was made, numerous middle-east experts were warning of the coming shift in power in Iran toward the right-wing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who would assume power shortly thereafter.
“ We thought it was a very propitious moment... But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the vice president's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil' ... reasserted itself. ”

— Lawrence Wilkerson, BBC Newsnight, January 17, 2007
---------------

On Guantanamo:

The Associated Press reports that on March 16, 2009, Wilkerson wrote on The Washington Note that he knew from briefings as a Bush administration official that it was soon recognized that some of the captives were innocent.[11][12] According to the Associated Press summary, Wilkerson said the Bush administration was willing to continue to detain innocent men who might nevertheless be aware of useful information about the Afghanistan "mosaic":

"It did not matter if a detainee were innocent. Indeed, because he lived in Afghanistan and was captured on or near the battle area, he must know something of importance."
"...sufficient information about a village, a region, or a group of individuals, that dots could be connected and terrorists or their plots could be identified."

Wilkerson stated that Guantanamo continues to hold innocent men.[11] Wilkerson said that he felt compelled to come forward after hearing former Vice President Dick Cheney state that President Barack Obama's plans to close Guantanamo made the public less safe.[13]

Commander Jeffrey Gordon, a Guantanamo spokesman, declined to comment on Wilkerson's specific observations.[11] According to an Associated Press paraphrase of Gordon's statement, he said that, "dealing with foreign fighters from a wide variety of countries in a wartime setting was a complex process."
------------

Currently: Wilkerson is a visiting professor at the College of William & Mary, teaching courses on U.S. national security. He is a Professorial Lecturer in the Honors Program at the George Washington University, teaching a course named "National Security Decision Making."

I see a lot of upside in this guy.

The downside:

In September 2006 in a conference call Wilkerson expressed support for Wesley Clark and Anthony Zinni. He also endorsed Jim Webb against incumbent George Allen in the 2006 U.S. Senate election in Virginia.[14]

 

[8ClicksPerSecond]

The best choice would be Peter Schiff. He's a great debater who can also self-finance the campaign quite a bit. Additionally, it would silence the "Ron Paul is an anti-Semite" people as Schiff is Jewish.

 

[dude58677]

John Stossel, he also has had the same views for several decades and it would be fun to see him debate Joe Biden.

 

[cindy25]

The best choice would be Peter Schiff. He's a great debater who can also self-finance the campaign quite a bit. Additionally, it would silence the "Ron Paul is an anti-Semite" people as Schiff is Jewish.

if Schiff had won, maybe-but a losing senate candidate ? self-finance - even Peter Schiff could not. even Mitt Romney could not.
and Jews would still vote for the Democrat, just as blacks would still vote for Obama even if a black is on the ticket

the best choice is really a Hispanic woman. but I have no ideas on who that could be

 

[MrTudo]

JUDGE NAPOLITANO WHICH WILL NEUTRALIZE romney's pick of what's his name from new jersey. The JUDGE is from NJ too. Wanna debate?

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Paul needs to pick someone every bit as radical as himself.

I would be fine with the Judge, like MrTudo proposes. LOL!

 

[CaptUSA]

The duties of VP are miniscule. Paul's options should be wide open. The decision of VP is a very political decision and it shouldn't discourage us if it remains one. It should be the best person that can help him win the Presidency - not someone who needs to help him lead. However, it should be someone that he can entrust should he happen to die in office. You wouldn't want someone the establishment loves or else you become an assassination target.

All in all, I think he could choose Romney. I think he could choose Daniels. I think he could choose Kasich. I think he could choose McDonnell.

This type of choice can give Paul some "executive leadership" bona fides which he lacks. They could be seen as President which would calm the stories about Ron's age. (Remember, Palin did some damage to McCain with independents because people could not envision her as President.)

Whatever decision Paul makes, let's all get behind it. It doesn't have to be an ideologically pure choice. Maybe one of these guys could learn under Paul and who knows, once Paul opens the door, maybe they will figure out you can promote liberty and win.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Why Glen Bradley of course. >:]

 

[Zap!]

The best choice would be Peter Schiff. He's a great debater who can also self-finance the campaign quite a bit. Additionally, it would silence the "Ron Paul is an anti-Semite" people as Schiff is Jewish.

That will cost him more that it helps him.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

If you want a military guy, Colonel Douglas MacGregor or Col. Lawrence Wilkerson seem like decent choices, at least on the surface.

I would put them on a national security team right now and then later put them in the administration.

 

[TheAmazingJimmy]

One word. Chuck Norris.

Seriously though, Adam Kokesh.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

One word. Chuck Norris.

Seriously though, Adam Kokesh.

ROFL

Double-edged joke