Saturday, March 3, 2012

Ron Paul as Vice-President?

Wow, maybe it won't be Rand Paul as VP, but Ron Paul, in a Romney-Paul ticket. And please don't take this as Dr. Paul selling out.

Lew Rockwell writes:
I am remembering the original constitution, designed so that the vice president was the president's greatest political opponent.
As I have pointed out before, the vice-presidential slot does not have to be a weak position (Think Dick Cheney).

Lew also links to these comments at Infowars:

Congressman Ron Paul appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight Thursday and dropped a significant hint that he would consider accepting a spot on the 2012 GOP ticket if it was offered to him.

Paul has vowed to stay in the GOP nomination race going into the national convention, and he still believes he can win it. However, there has been increasing talk of Paul potentially being on the ticket, regardless of whether he secures the nomination or not.

When asked by Morgan whether he would take a position in a Mitt Romney administration if it was offered to him, the Congressman shot back:

“I’ll have to wait and see. Maybe I’ll have to ask him if he wants to help me when I get in.”

Morgan conceded that he was hasty to discount Paul’s chances of winning, explaining that he framed the question in that way because he believes the Republican party would “be mad” not to use Paul in some form, given his popularity.

“In every state I always win among young people aged 18-30.” Paul pointed out. “If they are thinking about the future or even the Fall election, young people are very very important, and I am the one person who can take young people away from Obama.”...

Some supporters believe that such an eventuality would taint Paul’s legacy as the ultimate anti-establishment politician and obstruct the path those who are set to follow in his footsteps. Others believe any such offer to Paul would be part of an establishment attempt to neutralize his influence.

Nevertheless, with the chances of a brokered convention being higher than in previous years, and the likelihood that Paul will have a significant amount of delegates at the RNC, the eventuality is far from inconceivable.


  1. If Ron Paul runs as Willard's VP, then that means that Paul is endorsing Willard's policies, it's as simple as that. The VP has to act as the President's chief spokesman. Also, Romney is such a corrupt weathervane pol, the only thing that matters to him/it is grasping political power over others.

    Willard will not give Ron Paul any say in any policy whatsoever, especially if Paul ever suggests any kind of shrinkage of government power. Romney wants to expand it!

    What's the use with all this crap anyway? It's all just kicking the can until the eventual collapse and chaos. If Paul really were totally honest, he would tell the truth that we're going the same way as the Soviet Union, just as the European Union is going. We need to decentralize, and get rid of the federal central power structure completely.

    Is Maobama even going to allow this election to take place? (Hmmm. I wonder what happened to Breitbart? Jeepers, I have no idea...)

    1. Rob, we've been through this a couple off days ago when walter Block posted and the comments on your reply were unequivocal; no sellout, nothing other than the presidency.

    2. You might add that it is doubtful presidents are anything more than puppets... but I generally agree with the pessimism of your statement.

  2. "I am remembering the original constitution, designed so that the vice president was the president's greatest political opponent."

    That's what I was always taught and lead to believe too. ... Then something happened? Was in Bill & Al?

    I disagree with this: "If Ron Paul runs as Willard's VP, then that means that Paul is endorsing Willard's policies, it's as simple as that."

    Things do not have to be as simple as that, not at all.
    I pay my taxes but it does not mean I support the policies they fund. JMHO.

    1. If you don't pay your taxes, government goons kidnap or murder you.

      If you don't accept a job offer from a slimy politician, government goons do nothing.

  3. It doesn't mean he's endorsing Mitt's policies. It means that the GOP concedes it can't beat Obama without the libertarians. I'd go for any ticket with a Paul on it over Obama. Wouldn't you?

  4. -.- Please stop it, Dr. Wenzel. You are essentially promoting this nonsense.

    Ron Paul will be the biggest sell-out if he runs as Romney's VP. Romney and Paul's policies are the opposite of each other. It will not work. The politicians in late 1700s/early 1800s changed the rules for a reason.

    Romney is not going to end the wars. He will not reign in the Federal Reserve. He will not give Americans more liberty. Ron Paul will be a useless VP. Cheney was only a strong VP because he had money behind him.

    Honestly, it seems like you're ignoring your comments.

  5. RW,

    The comparison to Cheney should be debated. Cheney was powerful because W. was a puppet. I would put Mitt in a higher intelligence class than GWB. Bush probably didn't even realize Cheney was running the show for the first 4 years. The establishment wouldn't allow Ron Paul to be a strong VP. Hell, they may not even allow him to be a VP.

    Gore was a weak VP. Not because he wasn't capable but because Clinton was smart enough to play the game.

  6. Ron Paul can always resign from the VP out of principle if Romney breaks any promises and thereby devastate Romney's initial 100 days.

  7. What, would Paul spend the campaign debating his running mate? If they won (doubtful), would Paul spend his term attacking Romney for being Bush's 4th term? If these things happened, would Paul get any more attention as VP than he does as congressman? This country has had more than a handful of VP's that received less attention than Paul currently does.

  8. VP would be better then nothing, maybe Paul could get a few things done as VP. Obama signed the NDAA which means he can kill very worried and im not even an American....