Running mate?

Ron Paul is not likely to get the Republican nomination. My most realistic hopes for this campaign are for it to spread the message of liberty and limited government.

The good thing about this is that we have 18 months, or over 500 days to promote his campaign. With the massive amounts of efforts from everybody, we'll take this government back in a landslide.
 
The good thing about this is that we have 18 months, or over 500 days to promote his campaign. With the massive amounts of efforts from everybody, we'll take this government back in a landslide.

I've placed my highest hopes on it.
 
Larry Elder would be awesome. Neal Boortz is cool sometimes but talks too much.

Norman Schwarzkopf is supposed to be Libertarian and would be fun for Rep. Paul to campaign with.

Neal Boortz is NOT cool. He's another talking head claiming to be libertarian WHO IS FOR THE "WAR" on TERROR.
 
Wow, interesting discussion. How come the MSM don't have as good conversations as we do on this forum?!

Obviously, we need to avoid the joke mentions (newscasters, hasbeen Democrats, entertainers, no name LPers, et al.). This person should adhere to Dr. Paul's idea of the role of government (health care is not an issue between the states deserving a Federal solution). We also need to "balance" the ticket with someone with more managerial/executive experience.

I suggest Mark Sanford, the current governor of SC (perhaps offer it after winning in Iowa and NH just before South Carolina's primary to secure the nomination?). Although he endorsed McCain last time, he has stayed neutral so far. Sanford and Paul were close when Sanford was in the House with him.

Walter Williams, Bob Barr, and Colin Powell (Alma wouldn't let him take it, but the goodwill from the gesture would be huge), and of course Gary Johnson would be fine choices.
 
Would you elaborate on that some? I'm just curious as to why everyone seems so averse to this idea.

Ron Paul believes in leaving problem solutions to the market. He would to the extent legally, practically, politically and compassion-wise possible do everything he can to get the government out of the health care business.

As far as my own views on health care go, around the turn of the last century health care was "free" in that people could buy and practicioners could offer what remedies they saw fit at market prices and the government stayed out of their business. I prefer to make my health care decisions with advice only if I choose it. I don't want the government interfereing or skewing the market or telling me what drugs, remedies, nutrients or herbs I can or cannot buy. I believe the government's interventions have done FAR more harm than good.

As an aside, speaking of that we need to get the word out that Ron Paul is the only candidate who will protect our rights to vitamins and herbs.

read this:http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1749 Dr. Paul agrees with the "prescriptions" therein and will not change his views. I suggest you move to the Hillary board.
 
Last edited:
On universal healthcare, what many people miss is that in addition to the problem of forcing people to pay for the healthcare of strangers under penalty of imprisonment created by using tax money to fund the system, there's an even bigger issue.

If government is paying for your healthcare, your health, activities, and nearly everything you do become the governments business. You end up with mommy staters telling you you can't smoke, can't drink, can't eat the foods you like, can't participate in hazardous activities, etc. and locking you up for growing the wrong plants, keeping the wrong gun in the house, driving without a five-point harness and 15 airbags, and so on, and argueing it's legitimate because of the costs to the system.

Socialized medicine is totally hostile to individual liberty.
 
Colin Powell

I know he now has some baggage, but I think he'd help the campaign immensely. He still has national hero status, imo.
 
His choice for running mate is the most important of his entire campaign. Above all, he must pick someone unpredictable enough as insurance against getting Kennedyed. But he (or she) must also be stable enough to appeal to and draw from people who would otherwise vote for Hitlery. I say Karen Kwiatkowski.

That wouldn't be a horrible choice, either.

INTERESTING suggestion!
 
Michael Badnarik would be my first choice. I know alot of you have no idea who that is but if you looked into him you'd find his politics are near Idendical to President Pauls. he too ran for president as a Libertarian
 
If Chuck Norris was Vice President and Ted Nugent was secretary of state... that would be the most perfect combination of brains (Ron Paul), red neck firepower (Ted Nugent) and roundhouse kicks to the face (Chuck Norris).

Bin Laden would turn himself in out of pure fear.

Seriously.
 
If Chuck Norris was Vice President and Ted Nugent was secretary of state... that would be the most perfect combination of brains (Ron Paul), red neck firepower (Ted Nugent) and roundhouse kicks to the face (Chuck Norris).

Bin Laden would turn himself in out of pure fear.

Seriously.

That is the funniest thing I've read in a while. So great. Nugent lives just a few miles from me...I'll ask him!
 
Uncle Ted would be down.

Especially considering the fact that Ron Paul is the most gung ho 2nd amendment candidate on the ticket.

Did you know that all further debates and elections would be immediately canceled if Chuck Norris endorsed Ron Paul for President? It's no secret that since birth, Chuck Norris has always decided who becomes president...

Swear to God.
 
If she hadn't died in a car accident in October, I'd say former Idaho Congressman Helen Chenoweth. Or former Sen. Jesse Helms if he were younger. Bobb Barr or Pat Buchanan would be the best choices. Alan Keyes is good too.
 
Back
Top