Rand Paul will NOT rule out running as Vice President

[AuH20]

The intrade odds right now are

87% Romney
3.4% Ron Paul

to win the Republican Nomination.

Some would say those numbers indicate that Romney has a chance to win.

Others might argue that it's more likely than not that Romney will be the nominee, based on those numbers.

So it's not folly to conjecture about what we would want Romney to give us to get our vote in the fall if Romney was to get the nomination.

It's virtually over. If those polls in SC are correct. Romney will win the first 4 states. Pretty baffling.

 

[farrar]

Before this gets whisked off to Hot Topics, let's stop for just a moment and think about this. Two years ago, Rand was an unknown eye doctor from Kentucky. Now he has a real shot at becoming Vice President of the United States and making a serious impact on this country.

What if part of the deal was a full audit of the Federal Reserve? What if part of the deal was appointing Rand to be in charge of cutting the budget? I mean SERIOUS cuts. It's worth at least discussing here rationally, without screams of "sellout!" or "defeatist!" Can we have a serious discussion about this?

I won't vote for Romney. But I'd be happy for Rand anyway, even as I write his father in.

 

[QueenB4Liberty]

Yeah 12 years of Paul would be amazing. I don't think anything could make me vote for anyone but Ron Paul as POTUS.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I wouldn't vote for a Romney / Ron ticket let alone Romney / Rand. However, I wouldn't necessarily hold it against Rand if he accepted the position, so long as he holds true to his principles. I personally think it would legitimize 'libertarians' as a force in the GOP.

I have little hope for the LP these days, particularly after the Bob Barr nomination in '08.

This exactly why I keep telling RPFers that it wouldn't be the unmitigated disaster so many seem to think it would be. I mean, it wouldn't get my vote and it certainly wouldn't capture enough Paulers to actually win, but politically it would be a long term victory for our influence on the party.

I still could not vote for Romney no matter who his VP was. But the people who freak out and say Rand would be a 'sellout' for accepting the 2nd spot on the ticket are not thinking clearly. We would double our influence on the GOP overnight if such a thing happened. That means our platform starts sweeping State level races, US Congress, and US Senate. Where the real change happens anyway.

So yeah, I am solid NOBP, but y'all who would call Rand a 'sell out' for doing this clearly aren't seeing the bigger picture. I've been saying since 2007 that State level races are more important than the Oval Office. I am still saying that today.

 

[noxnoctum]

Nope, unacceptable.

I'm not trying to be irritating to anyone so don't take it that way, voting for Romney though is just totally not going to happen for me. He's pretty much the antithesis of everything I believe in.

Frankly I find it baffling and a bit disheartening to see how many people here are actually considering this! Romney is a notorious flip flopper! Regardless of what he promises you have NO guarantee he will follow through with it and given his ties to the banking cartel I don't see why he would.

Why do people seem to have mass amnesia every 4 years regarding politician's promises? Cmon, you guys know better than to trust Romney...

Follow the money people, not the rhetoric.

 

[Occam's Banana]

So it's not folly to conjecture about what we would want Romney to give us to get our vote in the fall if Romney was to get the nomination.

As regards my vote, it *is* folly (and by folly, I mean "a complete & utter waste of time") because I will NOT vote for Romney - not even for dog-catcher - under *any* circumstances.

At least, not under any circumstances that have even the slightest chance of ever actually occurring in this or most other universes.

 

[noxnoctum]

Also I think this thread needs to get deleted, this has no place right now, we're in prime place to take second in South Carolina and then it's game on.

 

[jmhudak17]

It works as a strategic move to advance liberty by increasing Rand's chances to be President in the future and expanding his influence on the party. I'm for it.

 

[TC95]

Romney would not invite Rand onto the ticket unless there were going to be accompanying changes to the platform. The idea would be to attract Ron's voters and keep them fired up.

What if Romney agreed to:

1) Full audit of the Fed
2) Fire Bernanke and replace with Jim Grant
3) Bring troops from Afghanistan, Korea and Europe
4) Appoint Rand "budget cutter in chief" with the task of cutting 1 trillion per year

Would this be enough?

No, it would not be enough. I want all the troops brought home from everywhere and all foreign aid to be cut and no war with Iran or any other country that has not attacked us. Even if Romney promised me all those things, I would still never vote for him, no matter who his veep was, because he can't be trusted to keep his word.

 

[roderik]

Lets be realistic here. Rand pretty much rushed into senate, with no experience whatsoever.
I think it would be very shortsightet to put someone up as VP who has just started his political career.
A lot of voters will def. see this as a huge risk.

 

[Paulitics 2011]

What the hell is with all these threads recently?

If it comes up, we'll (the campaign will) decide. Can we focus on winning the nomination, or at least these few states, first?

 

[Peace&Freedom]

What the hell is with all these threads recently?

If it comes up, we'll (the campaign will) decide. Can we focus on winning the nomination, or at least these few states, first?

The main objective is to grow the power of the liberty movement, and get its agenda enacted as policy. In 2012, yes, it's NO ONE BUT PAUL. Let's get the nomination. Every competent planner has a Plan B, however, and that's what the Rand talk is about---it IS part of our focus. It's coming up as an issue now, so that's exactly why it's being discussed. Rand as VP is based on the theory that Romney will lose in November, and after a mere two month stint in the running mate spot, Rand gets the full inside track/"my turn" spot in the GOP universe come 2016.

Should Ron Paul win a ton of delegates before the convention but falls short of the mark to stop Mitt, he might cut a deal to not run third party or tell supporters to stay home, in exchange for Rand as VP. If Mitt welshes on the deal, Ron in turn DOES KO Romney's chances. The deal might also stipulate that Ron does not endorse Mitt, but Rand does, with Ron's approval.

 

[Moo2400]

Personally, I think Rand as the vice president in a Romney administration would be a bad thing for the liberty movement. I've said it before in another thread. Rand would be seen as part of the Romney administration and would thus be associated with it, which means he would have to answer for it like it or not. This would put him in the defensive, likely forcing him to defend a lot of what Romney would do as president.

Pair this with the fact that the vice president is a relatively weak position, weaker than being in the Senate where he could maintain his independence from a republican president's administration. Rand as Romney's VP seems like the establishment's dream - woo a sizeable chunk of Ron Paul supporters to vote republican and take an independent minded republican out of real power while putting him in a position where he would essentially be forced to go along with the status quo. This would have the effect of compromising the liberty movement and destroy Rand's ability to truly inherit the movement he started, which means we would scatter. Rand as Romney's VP would be the worst possible situation for us. We do not want this. Keep it as an endorsement for Romney from Rand and nothing more.

Which is why if he became Romney's running mate, I'd probably go vote for Gary Johnson in the libertarian party, which I'd do regardless if Ron Paul doesn't win.

 

[tasteless]

Ron Paul should select Pat Buchanan as his vice president, because that would even further troll both the left and right establishment.

 

[parocks]

As regards my vote, it *is* folly (and by folly, I mean "a complete & utter waste of time") because I will NOT vote for Romney - not even for dog-catcher - under *any* circumstances.

At least, not under any circumstances that have even the slightest chance of ever actually occurring in this or most other universes.

Ok. That's great. You're sending a clear message to everyone that ignoring Ron Paul and completely shutting him out is the rational approach.

Nice.

Thanks.

I personally would want something, but, hey, Ron Paul Supporters are such brilliant strategic thinkers. Romney might be thinking "hey, is there anything I can give Ron Paul supporters to get their vote?" and you come back with NO. Thank you so very very much. Always good to get nothing, always, right?

 

[pinkmandy]

Nope, unacceptable.

I'm not trying to be irritating to anyone so don't take it that way, voting for Romney though is just totally not going to happen for me. He's pretty much the antithesis of everything I believe in.

Frankly I find it baffling and a bit disheartening to see how many people here are actually considering this! Romney is a notorious flip flopper! Regardless of what he promises you have NO guarantee he will follow through with it and given his ties to the banking cartel I don't see why he would.

Why do people seem to have mass amnesia every 4 years regarding politician's promises? Cmon, you guys know better than to trust Romney...

Follow the money people, not the rhetoric.

+ rep

There is no compromise to be had with those who lie, who support an unjust monetary system that turns our kids into debt slaves, who talk of America's freedom in speeches but support legislation which takes it away and turn to murder and bombs instead of dialogue with our perceived "enemies". And that's just the tip of the iceberg. NO THANKS. Throwing us a meaningless bone that may or may not change things in 4, 8, 12 years is bs. I cannot in good conscience cast a vote for someone like Romney.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I personally would want something, but, hey, Ron Paul Supporters are such brilliant strategic thinkers.

And just what kind of "something" do you imagine you are going to get that will be worth anything at all in the long-run (or even the short-run)?

I ask because - rather than identifying what it is you think we have to gain by hopping on board with Romney & the GOP establishment - you seem more interested in directing sarcastic sneers at those who are skeptical that there is something worthwhile to be gained (rather than persuading them that you are correct).

Romney might be thinking "hey, is there anything I can give Ron Paul supporters to get their vote?" and you come back with NO. Thank you so very very much. Always good to get nothing, always, right?

I am quite sure that Romney (& the GOP establishment) is thinking just that.

So what? What do they have to offer that we should want?

A prime-time speaking slot at the convention?
Whoopty-doo!

A few anti-spending or "let's get tough on the FED" planks in the party platform - planks that will be assiduously ignored after the convention?
Sorry, try again.

A VP slot for Rand that will remove him from the Senate & put him in the all-important position of presiding over rubber-chicken state dinners?
Oh, yeah, that's just what the movement needs! Not to mention that it will load Rand up with plenty of Romney-administration baggage. Yummy!

So - what then? What, other than sops & crumbs, do you expect them to be willing to offer?

Ok. That's great. You're sending a clear message to everyone that ignoring Ron Paul and completely shutting him out is the rational approach.

I disagree with this characterization of the NOBP message.

Either the Ron Paul Revolution has the power & werewithal to follow through and seriously compromise the establishment GOP's ability to do "business as usual" - or it does not.

If it does not, then this is all just a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. In this case, Ron & Rand & the rest of us should just dash to snatch up whatever crumbs the establishment is willing to toss to us (because there is no hope of anything better). Or not - after all, if this is the best we have to hope for, it doesn't really make a difference.

But if it does, then it should do so! We would be shooting ourselves in the foot by accepting the establshment's buy-out offer. By doing that, we would, to paraphrase your statement, be "sending a clear message to everyone that offering superficial rhetoric & cosmetic changes is the rational approach."

 

[The Dude]

Would never vote for Romney, regardless of who the vice president is. If Rand joins Romney on his ticket that will force me to never vote for Rand if he ran for President. I'd certainly look elsewhere for a liberty candidate if that is the case. Rand as a vice president will accomplish NOTHING.

 

[evilfunnystuff]

Romney might be thinking "hey, is there anything I can give Ron Paul supporters to get their vote?" and you come back with NO. Thank you so very very much. Always good to get nothing, always, right?

If he droped out and endorsed Ron, I wouldn't be opposed to Ron offering him a carefuly selected cabinet spot, he does like to fire people lol.

 

[qh4dotcom]

This exactly why I keep telling RPFers that it wouldn't be the unmitigated disaster so many seem to think it would be. I mean, it wouldn't get my vote and it certainly wouldn't capture enough Paulers to actually win, but politically it would be a long term victory for our influence on the party.

I still could not vote for Romney no matter who his VP was. But the people who freak out and say Rand would be a 'sellout' for accepting the 2nd spot on the ticket are not thinking clearly. We would double our influence on the GOP overnight if such a thing happened. That means our platform starts sweeping State level races, US Congress, and US Senate. Where the real change happens anyway.

So yeah, I am solid NOBP, but y'all who would call Rand a 'sell out' for doing this clearly aren't seeing the bigger picture. I've been saying since 2007 that State level races are more important than the Oval Office. I am still saying that today.

I would consider it for the same reasons...I'd love to see Rand debate Biden or Clinton in the VP debate...millions get raised for liberty, etc.

I recall some folks here wanted Obama or McCain to appoint Ron Paul for Secretary of the Treasury in 2008...so what would be the problem with Romney choosing Rand for VP or some other Cabinet position?

Also Romney might die of natural causes, Watergate 2.0 could happen, etc. and we'd get a President Paul.