Ron Paul for VP?

Published on May 17, 2007 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

OK, OK, hardline Republicans. In the wake of the debate, where many Republicans didn't appreciate Ron Paul's comments about 9/11, the title of this article alone seems farfetched, but hear me out.

Historically, the office of Vice President has been the big two parties' way of dealing with "loose cannons". With a short list of viable Veep candidates to balance the ticket, once all the smoke has died down, assuming Ron Paul doesn't win the GOP nomination, choosing him as the Veep candidate would be the sane, sensible thing to do.

The office of Vice President is a largely ceremonial one, basically being limited to presiding over the senate (but without a vote, except in cases of a tie, which Senators work hard to avoid for that very reason), and basically being the Presidential "finger" by attending funerals the President doesn't care to attend. While the Vice President is also next in line for succession, that's a risk party leaders have been historically willing to take. And assuming the GOP wins in '08, even the most optimistic would be delusional to expect that trend to carry on indefinitely.

Ron Paul brings an X-Factor to politics: the Libertarian vote. While mainstream pundits are quicck to laugh off the Libertarians, the truth is that they are fast becoming a viable force in politics, a super-PAC if you will, that carry a fair number of votes. And behind closed doors I am sure that is a factor readily acknowledged. In Ron Paul they have a candidate who can bring in votes that the GOP has historically lost, both in the Libertarian votes and in the anti-war crowd. I am certain that conservative doves would like to have an alternative to the Cindy Sheehans of the world in mainstream politics, and Ron Paul just may be it.

Is Ron Paul perfect? Not by a long shot. But consider his list of opponents in the GOP primary. Other than Mitt Romney, all come with a fair amount of baggage, and all stand to be as much of a liability as Paul. But Paul brings with him strong populist support, and a long history of service in that field, a history the GOP would be wise to ignore. In the end, offering him the carrot of the Vice Presidential candidacy could well be a wise move. The question then would be: will he take it?

Comments (Page 1)

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on May 17, 2007

The office of Vice President is a largely ceremonial one

up until Gore it was. him and dick have really "redefined" the office with their various works. that may be for better or worse, only time will tell. or perhaps the next vp will be "highly encouraged" to return the VP role to it's former self which is more like a backup qb holdin a clip board than what the modern incarnation has become.

the truth is that they are fast becoming a viable force in politics

darn right they are! remember the words of ghandi...

1st they ignore you

then they laugh at you

then they fight you

then you win.

10 years ago, they were ingnored. as the neocons took power, they were laughed at. now, with paul stirring up the mix, they are fighting hard to silence him...guess what happens next?

btw...i did suggest in the past that if paul can make a good showing at least, he could get a cabinet position or some carrot. never really considered vp tho...hmmmm.

Adventure-Dude

on May 17, 2007

As a Libertarian, I am not comfortable with Ron Paul. His stance against Israel has me greatly concerned. I understand the context in which he made his comments but they trouble me. If we only take the stance of 'taking care of ourselves' where we only keep to ourselves we wind up with a WWII like scenario. With much of the left speaking very critical of Israel I'm looking for a strong leader to support Israel and stand up to the likes of Hillary and Carter.

With that light he may be dangled a carrot to pull some centrists and libertarian votes but I am concerned of the possible near future genocide here if the right don't pull of a BIG V in '08.

I know many Reps didn't like his 9/11 comment but I do think this may be an area we've overlooked or so quickly cast aside. I personally find it hard to believe much of ANY media release of this tragic day.

Those are my thoughts.

a solemn AD

Dr Guy

on May 17, 2007

Quite Frankly, the reason I am not paying attention to any of the parties at this point is it is too early. We are a year and a half out yet. By next Winter, the field will be thinning and I will pay attention.

Ron Paul? Could be. Along with many others. I think half the 10 now are in it for the Veep spot, not the top spot.

Until next year, I hope we keep getting the sound bites like Huckabee's! At least that will keep you awake.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on May 17, 2007

I understand the context in which he made his comments but they trouble me. If we only take the stance of 'taking care of ourselves' where we only keep to ourselves we wind up with a WWII like scenario.

have ya ever noticed it was the "reluctant" warriors who win? FDR was a reluctant warrior. George Bush was an eager one.

as far as israel is concerned, we have to stop making them the symbol of all purity. they are not. people seem to forget that begin was called a terrorist back before his rise to legitimate power. people seem to think that all the palestinians should aof just said "sure, ok, thank you sir, may i have another" when the west determined that we would just take their land and hand it to the israelies. but we all know that this all stems from people's religious beliefs and fears and not smart foreign policy. again, the mixing of religion and politics, that became oh, so popular post WWII.

while the powers that be have us all quibbling over school prayer and other nonsense as if they were real issues concerning church and state...the most important mixing of those 2 forces has been swept under the rug and replaced with the propoganda we have been ingesting for almost 60 years.

i'm not saying we should turn around and kick the jewish people out of israel, or force regime change or anything. like in so many other tradgedies, what's done is done. but demonizing those who were pissed off that the west once again, as it has done since the middle ages, comes in and dictates to the natives who and what they will be. meanwhile, showing that the only real interest in the region has nothing to do with them as a people, in fact we try not to even think of them as individual people.

face it people...they don't "hate us for our freedom" they hate us because from their point of view, all we have ever done was exploit their resources, oppress them, take their land and try to force them into signing up for our religion.

Island Dog

on May 17, 2007

Ron Paul will go nowhere. How can you have someone in the White House who thinks we are the bad guys?

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on May 17, 2007

How can you have someone in the White House who thinks we are the bad guys?

there's the twist and spin again...it's not that we are the bad guys. much of what we did over there was with decent intention. some wasn't. but regardless, it is THEIR perspective that is important here. you have to "walk a mile in their shoes" at least figuratively to get that. as long as it's "all about us" and we can do no wrong, we go nowhere. worse yet, we go backward.

fortunately, as loud as the pro war powers are trying to out shout this truthful message..it's still comin thru...and that won't change.

in 1860. this was the scene...of all the contenders for the republican nomination, lincoln was the least known. not completely unknown, but not very well known either.

the 3 front runners were Seward, Bates and Chase. But come the convention, Bate's chief objective was to stop Seward, who was the favorite. Chase too, had his eye on Seward. Seward worried about Chase. BAtes figured he would win as he was the only real moderate. none of them considered lincoln a threat at all.

to quote doris Kearns goodwin, in her book on Lincoln, "Team Of Rivals"....

"There was little to lead one to suppose that Abraham Lincoln...who scarecely had a national reputation, certainly nothing equal to the other 3...and had no administrative experience whatsoever, would become the greatest historical figure of the 19th century."
remember that when you are predicting the future.

and as lincoln said at age 28, in reference to our nation (again, from TOR)...

"We Find Ourselves...in the peaceful possession, of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil and a salubrity of climate" The founding fathers had crafted a covernment more favorable to liberty "than any of which the history of former times tells us." Now it is up to their children to preserve and expand the great experiment.

you can interpret that any way you like. i, for one, think those words are brilliant and every bit as true today, if not more, than they were then.

Adventure-Dude

on May 17, 2007

Sean,

This seems to be getting off point. But I don't see you leading the charge to give US lands back to the Natives?

but if you use that idea and go back to before 70AD then Israel has a right to be there? Who then may I ask would have the say to where we stop?

while the powers that be have us all quibbling over school prayer and other nonsense as if they were real issues concerning church and state...the most important mixing of those 2 forces has been swept under the rug and replaced with the propoganda we have been ingesting for almost 60 years.

and having atheistic rule (communism) worked out real well in the Soviet?

I think this is more of an issue of 'respect of others' than a church and state matter.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 17, 2007

The fact is, whether you like him or not, ID, Paul obviously resonates with voters, and the GOP would, in my opinion, be ill advised to ignore that completely. Maybe they'll do what the DNC did with Howard Dean, and give him chairmanship of the party. Maybe a cabinet post. Who knows? But ignoring his presence completely would be a monumentally bad idea, IMEABO.

As a Paul supporter, I will say I don't agree with every word that comes out of the man's mouth. But Reagan was once credited as saying "if you and I agree 80% of the time, why should we be 100% enemies?" I think that applies here.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on May 17, 2007

This seems to be getting off point. But I don't see you leading the charge to give US lands back to the Natives?

don't purposefully ignore what i said...in all cases, what is done is done.

I think this is more of an issue of 'respect of others' than a church and state matter.

how much repect did the UN give the palestinians? zero. the whole world felt so bad about the holocaust, that they felt compelled to sweep out the arabs and bring in the jewish state.

that is a prototypical example of politics mixing with religion and the disasterous results.

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on May 17, 2007

But ignoring his presence completely would be a monumentally bad idea

it's past the point of ignoring..thus the fear.

As a Paul supporter, I will say I don't agree with every word that comes out of the man's mouth. But Reagan was once credited as saying "if you and I agree 80% of the time, why should we be 100% enemies?" I think that applies here.

i agree. but i haven't endorsed anyone officially. a paul presidency doesn't bother me a bit tho.

ParaTed2k

on May 17, 2007

Ron Paul is a good man and has a really good voting record in the House. He is one of the few in either house of Congress who seems to use the U.S. Constitution as a litmus test on his votes.

On the other hand, he is far too much an isolationist. He seems to think that the way to keep your neighborhood safe from crime is to simply lock your own door (figuratively speaking).

I think he's doing a great job exactly where he is, but your points about having him in the V.P. chair does have merit... especially about courting the Libertarian vote.

Adventure-Dude

on May 17, 2007

On the other hand, he is far too much an isolationist. He seems to think that the way to keep your neighborhood safe from crime is to simply lock your own door (figuratively speaking).

Exactly how I was thinking but wasn't able to put it so nicely. Thanks Ted!

Adventure-Dude

on May 17, 2007

what is done is done.

and your solution is?

Sean Conners aka SConn1

on May 17, 2007

and your solution is?

did i claim to have a solution here? sorry but i'm not gonna be able to solve the whole mid east situation here in the comments section of a blog. i have ideas, like everyone...but that has nothing to do with acknowledging a mistake.

are you saying that if i can't solve something, i have no right to criticize it or point out a mistake that every one of us should learn from, imho???

i love these "unless you can answer for everything and prove it, you can't say anything folk"...what a joke!

the 1st step towards any progress begins with an honest assessment of where you are. that includes looking back and acknowledging mistakes.

and EVERYONE makes mistakes...sometimes real doozies...i've had my share of whoppers, lol...but ignoring them or rationalizing them will only lead to repeating them over and over.

Adventure-Dude

on May 17, 2007

are you saying that if i can't solve something, i have no right to criticize it or point out a mistake that every one of us should learn from, imho???

quick to become defensive? I just took your idea and continued further with it.

but ignoring them or rationalizing them will only lead to repeating them over and over.

VERY MUCH agree!

the 1st step towards any progress begins with an honest assessment of where you are. that includes looking back and acknowledging mistakes.

Yes I'm well aware of your assesment of what we did wrong, as my issue with so many critics is so many are quick to criticize but do little with what they assesed!

i love these "unless you can answer for everything and prove it, you can't say anything folk"...what a joke!

didn't ask for an answer for eveything did I? I think you presume too much.

You are the one who initially challenged my view with regards to Israel. You have criticized HOW the things were handled in the past. Paul's solution of turning the US's back on Israel is not a solution I agree with and that is why I CHOOSE not to support him.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!