Those Against VP Spot

[tennman]

For those against Ron or Rand taking a VP spot, I have this sincere question/observation/challenge.

I keep reading here that the liberty movement has to build from the ground up - that we can't just hop in the White House right off. Why in the world then, if a President Paul is not possible, would we oppose a VP Rand Paul?

When Reagan was forced into choosing Bush Sr. as his VP when he din't want to, what came of that? President Bush.

Why would we want to give up that potential? We'd have a liberty-minded person in waiting for the presidency! And, as an added bonus, he'd have the ear of a President who genuinely likes his father.

Remember that for better or worse, Cheney shaped Bush's decesion making. Mostly for worse since Bush seemed to start out as a physical conservative and noninterventionist. Rand (and Ron) could help shape Romney and then have an experienced Rand with the almost default backing of the Republican party!

Just like in chess, you don't quit if you can't capture the king in the first few moves, we've got to be wise about the future.

I love Ron Paul and what he stands for and that's why I'll take a massive inroad like this instead of nothing. Flame away, but I'm just being honest and, I belive, logical.

Your thoughts?

 

[G-Wohl]

Upfront: I would not be opposed to a Paul VP slot, if the only alternative would be RP being absent from the ticket at all.

That said, Reagan left office with a 60-something percent approval rating. The majority of Americans were fond of the Reagan/Bush administration. I am reluctant to say that Romney would end his presidential career with such an approval rating - particularly during such economically and militarily tumultuous times.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

How much influence does Joe Biden have as VP? Also, I can't support it because they are nothing alike, Romney is a warmonger who likes the Fed and thinks they're doing a great job. I guess what I'm saying is that no matter who is VP if the POTUS isn't Ron then we are ****** even if it is Rand.

 

[amonasro]

How much influence does Joe Biden have as VP? Also, I can't support it because they are nothing alike, Romney is a warmonger who likes the Fed and thinks they're doing a great job. I guess what I'm saying is that no matter who is VP if the POTUS isn't Ron then we are ****** even if it is Rand.

It's not so much about influence as it is perceived credibility. As VP you know Ron would milk that seat to the max in order to get the message out.

Then again, VP is President of the Senate, and can cast tie-breaking votes.

 

[kylejack]

I'm against Rand Paul, not a VP spot for Ron. I still wouldn't vote for a Romney/Ron ticket, though.

 

[Article V]

If Rand can't help his own father win Kentucky, then I seriously doubt anyone will consider him for a VP spot in 2012.

Ron Paul himself may, however, still be a VP contender; because, unlike Rand, Ron truly has a national presence and a national campaign.

 

[Mark37snj]

It would dishearten, co-opt, and disintigrate the Liberty movement. It would take years to reassemble the pieces.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

Let's just make sure we have delegates... and we better make damn sure Ron doesn't just get a lame speaking platform at the convention. We need to make deals and get something TANGIBLE form this. Either a VP slot of a person of our choice or make a deal with our enemies for the pledge of their delegates.

 

[Article V]

I'm against Rand Paul, not a VP spot for Ron. I still wouldn't vote for a Romney/Ron ticket, though.

Having Ron one breath away from becoming Commander in Chief is as close as any liberty-lover can ask us to get in 2012 if Ron does not win the GOP nomination.

In a future where life & health are uncertain and where America is likely to be involved in 4 theatres of war while suffering massive inflation, massive bankruptcies, and massive riots, it's very possible that a lone nutcase may target the President. Having Ron Paul as our VP would do a lot to quell my fears in such a dangerous scenario.

And, besides that, Ron as VP would be the best way to market and spread the liberty message, because the man would be able to command national media attention whenever he spoke for 4 years, which is something no other liberty candidate would be able to do during that time or has been able to do in the past.

 

[The Binghamton Patriot]

For those against Ron or Rand taking a VP spot, I have this sincere question/observation/challenge.

I keep reading here that the liberty movement has to build from the ground up - that we can't just hop in the White House right off. Why in the world then, if a President Paul is not possible, would we oppose a VP Rand Paul?

When Reagan was forced into choosing Bush Sr. as his VP when he din't want to, what came of that? President Bush.

Why would we want to give up that potential? We'd have a liberty-minded person in waiting for the presidency! And, as an added bonus, he'd have the ear of a President who genuinely likes his father.

Remember that for better or worse, Cheney shaped Bush's decesion making. Mostly for worse since Bush seemed to start out as a physical conservative and noninterventionist. Rand (and Ron) could help shape Romney and then have an experienced Rand with the almost default backing of the Republican party!

Just like in chess, you don't quit if you can't capture the king in the first few moves, we've got to be wise about the future.

I love Ron Paul and what he stands for and that's why I'll take a massive inroad like this instead of nothing. Flame away, but I'm just being honest and, I belive, logical.

Your thoughts?

this is a compromise. We don't compromise.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Having Ron one breath away from becoming Commander in Chief is as close as any liberty-lover can ask us to get in 2012 if Ron does not win the GOP nomination.

In a future where life/heath are uncertain and where America is likely to be involved in 4 theatres of war while suffering massive inflation, massive bankruptcies, and massive riots, it's very possible that a lone nutcase may target the President. Having Ron Paul as our VP would do a lot to quell my fears in such a dangerous scenario.

And, besides that, Ron as VP would be the best way to market and spread the liberty message, because the man would be able to command national media attention whenever he spoke for 4 years, which is something no other liberty candidate would be able to do during that time or has been able to do in the past.

But with President Romney bombing Iran, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and any other country who doesn't agree with us how will that make RP the peace candidate look as VP? Also, the tie breaking vote is irrelevant.

 

[Article V]

It's not so much about influence as it is perceived credibility. As VP you know Ron would milk that seat to the max in order to get the message out.

Then again, VP is President of the Senate, and can cast tie-breaking votes.

Yes on all accounts. Plus, post-2012, a tie-vote Senate is surprisingly more likely than ever.

 

[harikaried]

What change can the VP spot bring about now, in 4 years, 8 years, etc?

VP spot (assuming win):
now: not much
4 years: not much (unless people really hate the president)
8 years: potential shoe-in for president

VP spot (assuming loss):
now: media attention (e.g., Palin)
4 years: slight boost in 2016 run
8 years: second term

no VP spot (Obama reelected):
now: not much
4 years: open 2016..


It might seem like a Rand Paul VP spot with people voting against the ticket might be the better option if the other option is Ron Paul for VP spot. Although it's hard to tell how people/media will react if not-Paul/Rand ticket loses in terms of Rand Paul's future run.

 

[Article V]

But with President Romney bombing Iran, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and any other country who doesn't agree with us how will that make RP the peace candidate look as VP?

It'll make him look like the only reasonable person in the administration. And it'll make him look like a safe fallback if we suffer a major foreign attack that incapacitates the President, because we'll know Ron will retaliate for our safety while not over-reacting and causing more danger to befall us.

 

[soulcyon]

Romney is on all sides of every issue, you can't really pin him as opposite of RP's stances. I've heard him talk well about RP, as well as agree with RP about the wars in Afghanistan etc. I'm still writing in Ron Paul, although I don't dislike the Rand Paul VP option.

 

[Butchie]

It's not so much about influence as it is perceived credibility. As VP you know Ron would milk that seat to the max in order to get the message out.

Then again, VP is President of the Senate, and can cast tie-breaking votes.

Credibility? To be forever linked with Romney's disaster of a Presidency? I'm not saying "no" to this because I'm one of these religious Paul fanatics who says "NOBP" I'm saying no because I don't believe many of you are thinking this out, Ron would have zero power, VP almost never get on TV except when they do something stupid, and if the Pres they serve under crashes, they crash with them, and there goes Ron's legacy. As for him becoming Pres after Romney - is that a joke? Ron would be 85yrs old by that time, 76 was pushing it as it is.

 

[TheGrinch]

I want to scream whenever someone says it could have the influence of Cheney.... The only reason Cheney had so much power is because Bush and big interests backed him to piss all over the constitution.

With Dr. Paul or Rand obeying the limitations of office through the constitution, along with a president and interests behind the secnes that oppose him messing with their gravy train, it would be little more than a token role, with the detriment of tying ourselves to an administration that if/when they fail by not listening to Ron. We'd go down with their ship, the liberty movement would be dead, and the Democrats would take back the white house (if you can even get past the campaigning part with diametrically opposed messages, going up against the Obama rhetoric machine).. It's political suicide.

Allowing them to co-opt our movement with just a few concessions, well, it's just not gonna happen, and there are so many reasons why Romney won't offer it and it's even less likely Ron will or Rand will take it.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Romney is on all sides of every issue, you can't really pin him as opposite of RP's stances. I've heard him talk well about RP, as well as agree with RP about the wars in Afghanistan etc. I'm still writing in Ron Paul, although I don't dislike the Rand Paul VP option.

He has consistently stated that RP is wrong on foreign policy, the Fed, and many other issues. He only flip flops on domestic issues.

 

[anewvoice]

It is standing US policy to not negotiate with terrorists so I don't see how a deal could be made with Sanromnich.

 

[polomertz]

Of course I would love Ron to be VP no matter who is president. HOWEVER, I would not vote for that ticket - something about lipstick on a pig....