But that is what FOX News editor Cody Willard is calling for:
Congressman Ron Paul should get Elizabeth Warren as his VP candidate. Imagine the passion that ticket would enlist in people. It might actually win! It’d be impossible for any true “conservative” to vote against presidential candidate, Ron Paul. And it’d be impossible for any true “liberal” to vote against vice presidential candidate, Elizabeth Warren.It's true Paul and Warren are both against the status quo and the crony capitalism gone wild in Washington D.C., but the comparison between Paul and Warren stops there.
Paul is all about eliminating regulations so that the free market can grow and prosper. Warren is for the exact opposite. She wants more regulation. When she headed a TARP oversight committee, she studied the possibility of nationalizing the banking sector. It is her prodding that resulted in the nightmare Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a huge new government monstrosity that will ultimately benefit insiders at the expense of the rest of us.
I have no inside information on this but I seriously doubt there is any chance Paul would choose Warren as a running mate. How sure am I about this? I really believe that Paul would prefer Barney Frank as a running mate and there is no chance that's going to happen either.
It is important for a candidate to be against the current attitude and leanings in Congress, but it is just as important to know how a candidate would change things. Ron Paul is the only candidate consistently in favor of liberty. I have never seen Elizabeth Warren stand up for a libertarian principle.
Yikes! That's like saying, "God and the Devil, what a ticket! Impossible not to vote for!"
ReplyDeleteUgh.
Libertarians should love Elizabeth Warren because she wants to enforce laws, contracts, and make a marketplace that is honest. Ideally, the new Bureau would be funded by consumers directly, but from all I have seen of Elizabeth Warren, she is a statesman and highly educated in Economics akin to Congressman Paul. Any functioning society has crime and police to stop that crime. Currently, we have way too much white collar and very complex crime/fraud and we need incredibly intelligent people to fight it.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that they are on opposite sides of a lame party system But I would not say that they are on such opposite sides that they could never find common ground in these dangerous times. They are both such honest intelligent supporters of the of the public good, just going about it in a corrupt system. If these two sat down together they might just complement each other. He could shape her on where people need to be responsible for themselves and she could help him plan practical phasing out or revision of costly programs. It could make for the end of the wasteful party war we engage in every four years. I am willing to admit that this could just be wishful thinking that battle lines can be withdrawn in an effort for all.
ReplyDelete