Anyone Object To A Vice President Ron Paul?

Ron Paul for...Vice President I think everything Ron Paul stands for deserves as much oxygen as it can get (for good or bad). But no matter what the effect of that vetting, no matter how well he does in Iowa and New Hampshire, I still don’t see a path to the nomination. (This does not make me a neo-con, by the way.)

Gary Johnson has gone third party-ish (Libertarian), taking that avenue from the esteemed Texas Congressman, and we have to wonder if there is a Huntsman independent bid, a Donald Trump Fifth column party, or any number of other players vying for “most arrogant attention seeker in a hopeless endeavor destined to give Obama four lame duck years to finish the country off for good” category. Ron Paul not getting the nomination is a part of that conundrum. In fact, he may well turn out to be the Justice Anthony Kennedy of the GOP Primary.

His fans are legion in their support and willing to do anything to see him find a way to the White House. Many are already promising to stand by and risk Obama getting re-elected rather that vote for some McCain retread, risking what amounts to a protest-fast that will probably end in the death of liberty before we get another shot at the oval office.

But does Ron Paul as VP change the game?

It would end Gary Johnson’s aspirations (again). No offense to Governor Gary, but the GOP didn’t kill his radio storm, Ron Paul did. Without him, Johnson gets most if not all the Libertarian affection, glowing praise from all the libertarian luminaries, a seat at every debate, and all the unattractive attention that goes with it. If we are being honest, the Not-Republican in the GOP race killed your campaign Gary not the Republican Party.

Ron Paul as VP is far and away more lucid and less dangerous a second than Joe Biden–at least there is ample room to make that case if the left wishes to attack Paul the way they went after Palin.

Dr. Paul VP circles the libertarian wagons around almost any GOP ticket and turns the sideline stand that might re-elect Obama out of spite into a nose-holder at worst that saves the nation from four more years of Czars, Holders, and Elena Kagan’s Oh My!

Or does he?

Would Vice President Ron Paul be a boon or an albatross to any other GOP presidential contender?

Like it? Share it!

by Steve MacDonald

Steve is a New Hampshire resident, blogger and activist. He is a husband, Dad, homeowner, info junkie & dog lover who works a day job, and is also starting a small business. He is a member of the Coalition of New Hampshire taxpayers, is on the board of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire, has done political radio, and currently helps to produce GrokTALK! and GrokTV!.

See all posts by Steve MacDonald
Visit Steve MacDonald's website

Follow @nhstevemacd

Find Steve MacDonald

Add Steve MacDonald

Email Steve MacDonald

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1725570458 Rich Sturtevant

As VP Ron Paul would effectively be out of sight and out of mind. This would please the status quo perfectly. And the US will continue to sink (regardless of which other candidate is elected).

I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, and I haven’t read enough of this blog to get a good sense of you but I keep hearing (from others and you here) the idea that we need to circle the wagons around the strongest candidate that can beat Obama. That the country can’t survive another four years of Obama. OK, so you’ve gotten Obama out. Does that solve our problem? I don’t think so. Not even remotely.

The problems we are facing today have been brewing for a hundred years. The RATE at which our liberties diminish and the scope which our government lays claim to has relentlessly increased. We’re bankrupt, consistently robbed, largely unaware that we are a republic with a constitutionally limited government, blissfully ignorant of economics. And we will be utterly surprised at how fast it all slips away. How much time do you think we have left?

If I had I had asked you a year and a half ago, before anybody had thrown their hat in the ring, “Who would you pick to pull us out of this fire?” do you suppose Newt Gingrich would have come to mind? Was Mitt Romney the easy choice? Do ANY of the other candidates have a record of following the Constitution? Have any of the other candidates actively pursued defaming and dissolving the Federal Reserve? Have any of the other candidates said more than a few sound bites about whether central control of our money supply and fiat currency is appropriate in the “land of the free”? The supposed “top” two contenders in this race can’t even hold a consistent message from one election to the next. Circle the wagons? Around what?

Honestly, I don’t think there is another candidate in the race that can fill Ron Paul’s shoes. And I say that knowing full well that even if he wins the Presidency, it probably will not be enough. There have been maybe two or three elections in this country as important as this one. Important, not to get a particular guy out, but to get a particular IDEA in. And you’re right, Ron Paul’s ideas need as much oxygen as they can get. Particularly now, and hopefully by you.

I OBJECT to a Ron Paul vice president. Why would I want the candidate with the clearest understanding of what our current problems are and how to solve them relegated to chief tie breaker and assistant nodder to the President? I hope you’ll soon see a path to his nomination. I’ll be making it right past your circled wagons when I VOTE for him.
Anonymous

First , Dr Paul is in the wrong party. He is a Libertarian and should run as one. Second, he is dangerous. His stands, though strictly Constitutional, are devoid of two things- a proper understanding and application of Original Intent, and the morality that is suppose to accompany it. His stands turn liberty into license and would allow for radical freedoms that the Founders warned against. I will not bore anyone with the reams of quotes of the Founders to prove this. Anyone who truly cares could easily find them for themselves.

C. dog e. doG

Oh don762 –
There you go again running from your shadow, and that big scary holograph projected by The Good Dr. Ron Paul. And please, for Freedom’s Sake, get your head out of dusty books as you conjure up from your pipe’s tendrils the original intents of fictitious characters that roamed the fruity plains back in the Archaic Period. Remember, don762, there can be no liberty if there is license because the very nature of licensing eliminates freedom (e.g.: think speech license, or if you love guns and hooch, licenses for same).

I’m curious, just how do you intend to impose YOUR particular brand of moralism on us heathens? Issue marriage licenses to keep the races separate? Stuff non-missionary style canoodling back in the closets? Reimpose prohibition against alcohol, or is that your drug of choice, so it’s o.k. so long as you don’t imbibe or buy on Sunday? Radical indeed.

– C. dog enjoys his eponymous style of a cold winter’s eve with a few dear, dear friends, sans license
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1725570458 Rich Sturtevant

Don, I would not be bored with a few of those quotes, but would they be relevant? When you speak of Original Intent, how do you square the views of Jefferson as opposed to Hamilton (or the differing views of the other fifty or so framers)? How do you integrate their quotes with their personal failings (words vs actions)? Where does Original Intent fall between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists; the Constitution as written and the call to add the Bill of Rights to get it ratified; the lack of unanimous initial ratification; the change in interpretation of some of the Federalists after ratification. How do you square the colonies with established religions with those that did not establish religions? Are the framer’s quotes more or less relevant than the ratifier’s views and interpretation? Do we know all of them?

My long winded point is that while trying to learn what was intended by these people is important, it is only an imperfect guidepost. Trying to nail down ONE “original intent” amongst all the framers, ratifiers and Citizens of the colonies is to deny the obvious fact that they were individuals.

As far as which party Dr. Paul runs in, I have no problem with any candidate running in any party they can “invade” so long as the biased parties that make up the Commission on Presidential Debates tilt the playing field towards their own interests.

One last thing, while I agree that morality is with out a doubt necessary in society and a system of self rule, I believe it is a prerequisite to these. We The People can not impose morality upon ourselves through government if we do not already have it. And if we already have it, it does not need to be imposed. Deciding or imposing morality is not and should not be a function of government.

Natron74

I beleive Ron Paul would object to being a vice President. He’s in this for change, not for title.
C. dog e. doG

Steve –
As we have repeatedly seen with prior V.P.’s, they are typically nothing more than a figurehead, or a comic relief, for the Prez. I don’t think The Good Dr. Paul would make a good shill for some RINO, do you? Plus, I doubt they could find a muzzle strong enough to contain his radical thoughts that people should be free of Nanny (see don672 below).
– C. dog, unleashed and untamed
Anonymous

Rich, thanks for reading. I hope you come back often enough to figure us out.

As to the post, maybe he’d never accept the offer, (though I have no objection to him being a noisy VP for liberty) but in truth, I am really more interested in whether his supporters would vote for a ticket with RP as VP. In the realm of theory, Is Dr. Paul VP good enough for those who claim they’ll sit it out if he fails to get the nomination?

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1725570458 Rich Sturtevant

Well, I’ve been clear that I wouldn’t vote for him just because he was on a ticket for VP. My sense is that a majority of Ron Paul supporters would not vote for another candidate with a Ron Paul VP unless that candidate held a similar platform and record.

The reason I say that is because I don’t think you come to support him off the cuff. Certainly not from sound bites, media bites and debate bites. Many of his supporters have been following him from the previous election (or earlier) and have been digging deeper into what he’s been saying regarding sound money, foreign policy, limited government, etc. Through the Mises Institute, Tom Woods’ site, authors like Mises, Rothbard and Bastiat to name just a few, there is a solid foundation to support the views that Ron Paul espouses. I’m not saying that having done some digging a person will come to the same conclusion that I have, but I think if they do it’s awful hard to turn your back on them.

As to coming back often, I will endeavour to check this blog out a bit more. You’ve been on my short cut bar for some time now due to a post about the Nullification tour in LA. That’s a blog post I liked very much. I’m sure there’s more we agree on than disagree

http://www.facebook.com/GreaterNashuaTea Gntp NH

Secretary of the US Treasury, and no less (in the event he doesn’t win the nomination, which we should not count out at this point).
Anonymous

Rich- Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful comments. These are sorely lacking in most present dialogue. To your point of government imposing morality, it does that each day. Every law is a moral judgement, passed by government and held up as a standard of some type of behavior. Laws say that it is OK to do this, but bad to do that. So it is not a matter of IF morality is being imposed, but who’s morality will be the standard. As an example- If we cannot impose morality, then pornography should be readily available on regular television for all to see. If you don’t want to watch it, then don’t. By not allowing pornography on general television programs, that is passing a moral judgement. The entire argument of government not imposing morality falls flat- don’t you think? We have a right to impose restrictions on behavior that we, as a society, deem repugnant. That is the nature of an ordered society. The only thing we are debating here is where that line will be drawn. Nothing more.

Spamproof

I agree. All laws necessarily reflect morality. I don’t know why those heathens in the UK drive on the left side of the road. What’s next? Legalized pedophilia?

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QCBZ5QETCRWA57PMFRLIAIJ5LU Homerfinn

Hi
Steve, I enjoyed your blog. I am all for Ron Paul for Vice President. I think he could make this a cakewalk for Romney. I am of the great unwashed middle that the
Republican party tends to ignore come election season. I was one of the many that voted for Obama
and then quickly suffered voter’s remorse. (McCain’s VP choice made him unelectable). Ron Pauls not perfect, and we may need him more
than we want him. However, the only way for
him to get into the White House, is probably via the Vice President’s door.
http://profile.yahoo.com/SB6CMU3HDCJ5H4K27SFEDEY2IQ RS

Actually if you ask me Ron Paul as VP will be more advantageous than any of the other candidates and not like he has any dirt on him to be attacked on. Palin is a bad comparision as she has alot of dirt about her. She can be better compared with Gingrich. With Ron Paul as VP Obama will be in a very tough fight against Romney because with Ron Paul by Romney’s side will even get Democrats who don’t like Obama now to vote for Romney because of Ron Paul’s liberal ideals to get the country back on track.
Fran Drescher

I think when Paul loses the nomination he should seek the VP bid in the Gary Johnson campaign. It would make the most sense… keep the Libertarians together and unify forces. In that case Johnson getting a voice on the National stage would probably happen and he can curb the crazy from the common RP supporter.