Would you vote for Ron Paul if Romney was the VP

[Jack Bauer]

I voted no. That would be a Jesus/Satan ticket as far as I'm concerned. I know that's a black-and-white view but I just don't want Romney that close to the presidency when we will have a 77 year old man who will be (let's be honest) at risk of assassination.

^^
THIS

My answer is a

I dont think Ron will sell out.

 

[angelatc]

Voted "I'd think about it." I blogged about it, and one of the comments made a pretty persuasive case against it:
http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com...ml#comment-6a00d83452719d69e20167607c4099970b

1) All vice presidents still have "ceremonial" offices in the Senate. Lyndon Johnson (maybe Hubert Humphrey) was the last one to really use it in a meaningful way (Agnew may have tried)--and having been Majority Leader, Johnson KNEW how to use it.

2) The problem with the Rand VP option is several-fold:

a) it would implicitly require Ron to endorse Romney, instead of keeping his mouth shut, or endorsing Johnson. If he does that, does he lose credibility with his supporters, who then say "oh, so it was just about politics, not really about making change"?

b) Rand could be shut out of decisionmaking just like Truman was (assuming a Romney win)--not even knowing that we had an atomic bomb or how WWII was being waged, or what discussions had been had with Churchill and Stalin....

c)if Romney loses, then Rand is in the position of having been part of that losing ticket. I didn't do a comprehensive historical search, and I may have missed someone, but I can only find one example, from either party, in the last 100+ years where a VP candidate on a losing ticket has later gotten his party's Presidential nomination...Bob Dole, who was the VP candidate in 1976 for Ford, and who (20 years later!) got the presidential nomination in '96(but of course didn't win). That's not to say that it's impossible, but I'm not sure that being on the losing ticket is necessarily the way to get yourself elected to the top spot 4 years later...Even assuming Romney could win, Vice Presidents only get to do as much as the President will let them (related to "b", above). Before signaling that there might even be an interest in being considered, I think the Pauls need to sit down and discuss how much of a risk they'd be willing to take that Romney would give Rand significant responsibility, and whether it's worth giving up a prominent place in the Senate.

Personally, if deals are going to be made, I'd hold out for naming Ron to the Cabinet--maybe Secretary of the Treasury...​

 

[Mini-Me]

I voted no. That would be a Jesus/Satan ticket as far as I'm concerned. I know that's a black-and-white view but I just don't want Romney that close to the presidency when we will have a 77 year old man who will be (let's be honest) at risk of assassination.

Exactly. I might vote for such a ticket in dire straights, but it will THANKFULLY NEVER HAPPEN. Ron Paul would be an IDIOT to make Romney his VP.

 

[MarcosP]

Ron/ Romney, is better than Romney/Ron(orRand) or not Ron at all. The President has all the power, the vice presidency has no influence. Hell yes I'd vote for that. Not to, would be stupid. Our goal is Ron Paul is President, period. What he can do for the cause of liberty from the pulpit is exponential.

 

[Rincewind]

Yes, absolutely.

I suppose Romney wouldn't be that bad a choice, in the broadens-the-base sense. I've been saying for a while that Paul's best chance in the general election may be to choose a relatively moderate Republican VP, because it would attract a different type of independent voter than Paul is currently attracting.

 

[muh_roads]

This is a stupid hypothetical. A more likely scenario is Romney asking Paul to be his VP to try and appease our growing numbers...

If Paul won the nomination why would he pick Romney? lol

 

[pauladin]

If Paul won the nomination why would he pick Romney? lol

I think this scenario is hypothetical only in a convention-compromise sense. I hear that Reagan didn't want G.H.W. Bush as veep but took him as a compromise. Is that true?

 

[RDM]

That would mean Romney would be one heart attack or bullet away from president. I would not support that.

This is my reason also why I voted NO.

 

[Captain Shays]

It's a death sentence for Ron Paul so my answer would be NO

 

[AhuwaleKaNaneHuna]

The chances may be high that Paul would get into a "plane accident" before his first day in office, then we would have indirectly elected Romney as Pres. For that reason, I answered NO. I need to be okay with whoever the VP is too before casting my vote.

The likes of Romney can't come anywhere near that office with my help.

 

[milo10]

I am just enough of a cospiratorialist to be concerned about this. But that aside, I'd say yes.

 

[rideurlightning]

Of course I would.

 

[shooter_tx]

I would vote for Ron Paul if Hannibal Lecter was filling the Veep slot.

I would vote for Ron Paul if Zombie Jeffrey Dahmer was filling the Veep slot.

The potential for good (w/ Ron as POTUS) outweighs the potential for bad (with Mutt as VPOTUS).


ETA: And I hate (hate hate hate!) Romney.

 

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

Be careful what you wish for.

I've heard some say Reagan was like Paul but making Bush 41 his VP caused the neo-cons to get into his administration and pull his strings on several issues.

 

[affa]

do we really need posts about this every day? the establishment is floating this compromise to us now because we're doing so well and are trying to suss out a compromise. why in the world would we put ourselves in a position where the second in line is an establishment hack?

 

[OrbitzXT]

I voted no. That would be a Jesus/Satan ticket as far as I'm concerned. I know that's a black-and-white view but I just don't want Romney that close to the presidency when we will have a 77 year old man who will be (let's be honest) at risk of assassination.

I agree with this. It's hard to vote without knowing what the alternative is. So if I say no to Ron/Mittens...what's that mean? Someone besides Ron is the nominee? Mitt Romney and Ron Paul have very little in common policy wise, integrity and personality. The only state I think Mittens would help win is Massachusetts, if they even win there. Otherwise I think he's a liability. Sarah Palin I think scared away a lot of independents who were genuinely afraid that if something happened to McCain because of his age we'd be stuck with her. We'd have the same issue here considering Ron Paul is 76. Yes, he's in great shape and amazing health and I hope to God he lives to be 100+ but who knows.

I'm not one of those "Ron Paul or none" guys on this board, I considered myself a Democrat mostly because of social issues and voted for Obama in 2008. If Ron isn't the nominee I will vote for Obama again. But to ultimately answer the question, yes I would vote for Ron Paul with a Mittens as VP over Obama, because even if something God forbid were to happen, a couple years with Ron Paul as president is better than 4 years of anyone else.

 

[TheDuke]

When Ron is the nominee, the GOP will push very hard to get an establishement guy in as the VP. Probably not Romney.

Over Obama, anytime

 

[parocks]

Not so fast. Mitt would be one bullet away from the Oval Office... and even if his millions wouldn't take care of that for him, he's personally shot small varmints more than two times before...

The question isn't "do you prefer Romney"? The question is, if that was the ticket, would you vote for it?

No one here should say "no, I won't vote for Ron Paul because of who the VP is".

My preference for VP would be a solid conservative.

I also think the VP spot should be Rand more than Ron, unless the Presidential nominee really is seen as lacking experience. If the Presidential Nominee was Sarah Palin, Ron Paul should be the VP Nominee. In almost any other case, Rand should be the VP nominee.

 

[NYgs23]

I'd risk it. It's a better shot at liberty Obama four more years. He'd have to live in a concrete bunker in an "undisclosed location" though, with a taste tester for his food. Though he'd probably have to do that anyway. Along with his entire family.

 

[parocks]

Be careful what you wish for.

I've heard some say Reagan was like Paul but making Bush 41 his VP caused the neo-cons to get into his administration and pull his strings on several issues.

No one is saying that we want Romney as VP. We would vote for Paul/Anybody. But it's up to Paul to make that VP pick. If there's a brokered convention, deals like that can get struck.