Would you vote for a Romney/Paul ticket?

[Plague-of-Locutus]

I voted yes assuming it was Ron Paul. As stated above, Ron Paul would not be on the ticket unless Romney made some significant concessions that favored our movement. I do not believe Ron Paul can be coerced into accepting for sake of party. He has made that abundantly clear by not endorsing Romney.

 

[specsaregood]

//

 

[TrishW]

If that is the only way to get Ron Paul closer to the Presidency then, Yes, I probably would. Not wishing Romney any harm, but he is human and over 60.

Besides, I do not want Ron Paul to retire! He needs to stay in the fight!

 

[romancito]

But it won't happen so it's a moot point.

Expect the unexpected. My printer tells me everyday that is out of ink just because I filled the cartridges myself.

 

[tfurrh]

Do we have a prize for the 1000th thread/poll on this topic?

 

[_pauladin_]

If Dr. Paul thought it would help the liberty movement, then I can see supporting him in that decision.

 

[MelissaCato]

NO, Ron Paul 2012 !!

 

[liveandletlive]

if Romneys pickin a Paul, its gonna be Rand, hes more hawkish and less of a neocon liability.

 

[Cleaner44]

No. The CONs would heavily outweigh the PROs and the liberty movement would be put off well beyond 2016. Hell no.

 

[CaptUSA]

To those of you who voted NO on this...

I think you are missing something. As unlikely as this scenario might be, if by some miracle it were to happen, the only thing to do would be to vote for the ticket. Why?

1. It would prove to the establishment that a ticket with a liberty candidate can win at the highest level.
2. While VP has very little power, it does provide a huge platform for our ideas.
3. Wouldn't it be nice to have at least one person in cabinet meetings with a little common sense?
4. Republicans would be forced to cheer on Ron Paul. Even if it is for the wrong reasons, they would be defending his statements instead of ridiculing them simply out of red/blue loyalty.
5. The only way Dr. Paul would accept such a thing is if they allow him to be himself. So we would have an outspoken critic of the administration at the highest levels. If something really creepy happened, he wouldn't be playing the hide-and-seek game.

If you voted NO, you really need to reconsider. This would move the liberty movement forward by leaps and bounds. Maybe not in actual policy, but in perception. The policy would follow. And, I too, would work my butt off for Romney if he made this choice. (Again, however unlikely that may be.)

 

[Okie RP fan]

No.

I've put a lot of thought into this and have evolved my opinion a little. I've simply come to the conclusion that it won't make much of a difference.

 

[CaptUSA]

No.

I've put a lot of thought into this and have evolved my opinion a little. I've simply come to the conclusion that it won't make much of a difference.

It's probably not going to happen, but if it were to happen, you'd have to put a little more thought into it.

If the GOP put a liberty candidate like Ron Paul on the ticket, and then lost... The game would indeed be over. We'd never be able to increase our influence.

 

[thatpeculiarcat]

No, no, no and fuck no.

I'm sorry but when I said, "NO ONE BUT PAUL"...I meant it.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

I have conditions in which I would vote for a Romney ticket... Here they are...

1. Name a strict constitutionalist with a sterling record as his Vice President. Ron Paul, Andrew Napolitano, and only a handful of others qualify.
2. Go publically on record with his hand on the bible and his book of Mormon stating that:.....
a. if he uses signing statements instead of a Veto,
b. if he signs bills that rely on liberal interpretations of the commerce clause or the general welfare clause,
c. if he signs bills such as the Patriot Act or NDAA that blatantly violate the bill of rights,
d. if he signs an unbalanced budget, and
e. if he goes to war without a formal declaration...
that he will resign!

so the Constitutionalist VP can become president.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I lost my dad at 10 years of age younger than Romney and so did my wife -- both of natural causes. just saying.

LOL...so then we would just sit around for 4 years waiting for Mitt Romney to die?



I would never vote for Romney, but I just can't bring myself to stoop that low. I'm not that cold.

 

[cajuncocoa]

To those of you who voted NO on this...

I think you are missing something. As unlikely as this scenario might be, if by some miracle it were to happen, the only thing to do would be to vote for the ticket. Why?

1. It would prove to the establishment that a ticket with a liberty candidate can win at the highest level.
2. While VP has very little power, it does provide a huge platform for our ideas.
3. Wouldn't it be nice to have at least one person in cabinet meetings with a little common sense?
4. Republicans would be forced to cheer on Ron Paul. Even if it is for the wrong reasons, they would be defending his statements instead of ridiculing them simply out of red/blue loyalty.
5. The only way Dr. Paul would accept such a thing is if they allow him to be himself. So we would have an outspoken critic of the administration at the highest levels. If something really creepy happened, he wouldn't be playing the hide-and-seek game.

If you voted NO, you really need to reconsider. This would move the liberty movement forward by leaps and bounds. Maybe not in actual policy, but in perception. The policy would follow. And, I too, would work my butt off for Romney if he made this choice. (Again, however unlikely that may be.)

*sigh*

No, it would mean the liberty movement has successfully been co-opted by leaps and bounds.

I know shrinks are fond of saying that perception is reality....but, no. Reality is reality.

 

[Dublin4Paul]

No.

I've put a lot of thought into this and have evolved my opinion a little. I've simply come to the conclusion that it won't make much of a difference.

I've kind of evolved in the opposite direction. Of course, this is never happening so it's all hypothetical anyway, but if Ron were nominated as VP for Romney, I'm not sure how you could argue that this is not at least slightly better for the country than Obama/Biden. While VP is technically a powerless position, the amount of influence the office holds can vary widely based on the person who holds it (and the person who holds the presidency, as we saw with Bush/Cheney). We all know that Romney is an empty suit, someone who can change any position of his he wants if it means he gets to maintain power. It's a well-established fact that Ron and Mitt are very friendly with one another, and I do think Mitt's positions would be made slightly better if Ron were to constantly have his ear. There is also, of course, the tie-breaking vote he has in the Senate.

Obviously a prospect like this is nothing to jump in joy about, and I'd have to take a few antacids after casting a vote for Romney, but I would say the option of having Dr. Paul have a position in the executive branch is better than Obama/Biden, or voting for Gary Johnson, who we all know is simply never going to win.

And to those who say this would kill the liberty movement, it really doesn't have to at all. We just shouldn't become complacent, continue the activities of getting involved in your local GOP and financing the congressional/senate campaigns of known liberty candidates, etc., and we will still continue to grow with Ron himself holding a seat in the executive branch

 

[CaptUSA]

*sigh*

No, it would mean the liberty movement has successfully been co-opted by leaps and bounds.

I know shrinks are fond of saying that perception is reality....but, no. Reality is reality.

The reality is that if Ron Paul's could gain acceptance in the party, then we'd have an easier time getting our candidates elected in primaries. Instead of the GOP ostracizing liberty candidates, they'd have to pay lip-service to them and even support them in primaries. Once we get enough of these folks in power, the legislation can begin to be adopted.

 

[donnay]

Absolutely, unequivocally NO One But Paul--period!

 

[kahless]

Better to have influence on the inside than from the outside looking in. On the outside means ZERO chance of effecting any change.