If Ron runs, should he announce his VP straight away?

[JohnEngland]

I'm wondering... If Ron runs, it might be a good idea for him to announce his vice-president at the same time or soon after.

My reasoning is that regardless of how awesome he is, many people will look at this age and be put off. It's just a reality of life. They'll say he's too old and not worth supporting.

So, to counter that, Ron could announce a 40/50/60 year old VP that'll make people feel more assured about supporting a Ron Paul campaign.

And I think such a decision would have to be sooner rather than later in a campaign. Ron needs to get the momentum early on in the presidential season.

This is all assuming he runs, of course.

[Matt Collins]

The VP thing you are suggesting is not gonna happen

[specsaregood]

I'm wondering... If Ron runs, it might be a good idea for him to announce his vice-president at the same time or soon after.
My reasoning is that regardless of how awesome he is, many people will look at this age and be put off. It's just a reality of life. They'll say he's too old and not worth supporting.

Yes, I've been suggesting that for awhile. But not just VP, I want him to announce his VP and his full cabinet.

[wizardwatson]

Yes, I've been suggesting that for awhile. But not just VP, I want him to announce his VP and his full cabinet.

Supporters that RP will gain by announcing VP and cabinet < Supporters he will lose when media machine picks apart the lives of everyone he's chosen

RP, if he runs, is a big enough target for the media machine himself, he doesn't need more targets early in his campaign.

imo

[specsaregood]

Supporters that RP will gain by announcing VP and cabinet < Supporters he will lose when media machine picks apart the lives of everyone he's chosen
RP, if he runs, is a big enough target for the media machine himself, he doesn't need more targets early in his campaign.
imo

I've made this argument before, I'm not so sure about that. I don't have time to go into it much more right now.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Who announces a VP during a primary? That's a general election thing.

[Kregisen]

Who announces a VP during a primary? That's a general election thing.

Who wants the end the wars? Who wants to end the personal income tax? Who wants to end the department of education? Who is very different from every other GOP candidate? Who is losing majorly in the polls? Who can take a risk to gain a huge amount of support by picking a very popular "tea-party" candidate like Chris Christie (he probably wouldnt want it though) to give Ron a real chance to win?

There's many pros to choosing a VP early on.

[QuinnR]

Again, Who the heck would do that and why?

[Eric21ND]

He should say, "Someone in the vain of Judge Napolitano or Jim Demint"

Demint would win us lots of favor with GOP'ers who aren't RP fans necessarily.

[specsaregood]

Again, Who the heck would do that and why?

Like I said, I've suggested that a few times. Here are some reasons why It might be worth considering:

#1, his VP choice would be used to combat the "he's too old" attack that we all know will come. Having the full cabinet named, could help ensure the voters that all will be well if something bad happened to Dr. Paul and he had to retire.

#2, the media conspired to paint him as a "radical". By naming other people with a good reputation and known as reasoned thinkers, it helps combat this attack. Also, gives him people that can defend his platform for him. ie: you want to attack his positions on foreign policy? The person he has named as his future Secretary of State can go on news shows to explain it and defend the position. You want to attack his monetary policies? the person he has named as his future Secretary of the Treasury can do the same.

#3 Campaigning is tough work. By naming a full team such as that, it increases the number of people that can do media appearances for him -- provided they know his platform on those specific issues. They can also do events around the country for fundraising and get the support base motivated. This means ron can continue to make his votes in the congress, pick and choose media appearances and not be run ragged.

#4 Remember Obama's campaign promises of "no lobbyists in his cabinet". He broke that promise after getting elected, this shows that Ron means it. It also gives people a better view of what his presidency would really look like.

#5 With such a team in place, it means if you attack Dr. Paul, you are attacking all of those people by association. These might very well be people that the media has led the public to trust. ie: napolitano?

[Churchill2004]

Jim "you can't be a fiscal conservative unless you're a social conservative" DeMint? No thank you. I don't understand how you could describe him and Napolitano as being in the "same vein", even with the Judge's personal conservatism.

I'd love to see a Johnson/Paul or Paul/Johnson ticket, which would probably be taken as the natural implication if they both run, which appears likely.

I do like the idea of candidates announcing their VP pick and Cabinet choices before the primaries, but the obvious problem is that excludes you from considering other Presidential candidates for those positions.

[Kregisen]

I do like the idea of candidates announcing their VP pick and Cabinet choices before the primaries, but the obvious problem is that excludes you from considering other Presidential candidates for those positions.

Romney? Huckabee? Palin? Gingrich? Pawlenty? Why would we want any of them?

[Churchill2004]

Romney? Huckabee? Palin? Gingrich? Pawlenty? Why would we want any of them?

I wasn't talking about us or this election in particular. Lincoln's cabinet included most (all?) of his rivals for the 1860 Republican nomination, to pick just one example. Obama selecting Biden and Hillary as VP and SecState is another. It's an important political mechanism to unite a party after the primary, and the crowd of failed candidates often includes the nation's most prominent and experienced political leaders. And I say this from a purely apolitical, nonpartisan perspective.

The same would all hold true if we succeed in libertarianizing the GOP. Say in 2016 or 2020 there are 3 or 4 liberty-oriented candidates (we're already likely to have 2 this go around)- would we really want them to all exclude each other from potential VP/cabinet selections?

It would be less of a problem for a candidate announcing his cabinet slate during the general election, but that too would possibly preclude reaching across the aisle to select persons from the other party. Just as a hypothetical, would we want President-elect Paul excluded from considering someone like Kucinich or Feingold for SecDef, because those persons would be obligated to reject such a pre-election selection in favor of supporting their party's candidate? (not that I think that would necessarily be a good choice!).

[Churchill2004]

woops, double post.

[Captain America]

age doesn't matter. most people are realizing he is good for the country.

[trey4sports]

Choosing kucinich or any dem for that matter is a great way to kill your GOP base

[Churchill2004]

Choosing kucinich or any dem for that matter is a great way to kill your GOP base

Exactly, yet it may be the best thing to do for the country. (Not that I think it is re:Kucinich, but it's conceivable).

[Eric21ND]

Jim "you can't be a fiscal conservative unless you're a social conservative" DeMint? No thank you. I don't understand how you could describe him and Napolitano as being in the "same vein", even with the Judge's personal conservatism.

I'd love to see a Johnson/Paul or Paul/Johnson ticket, which would probably be taken as the natural implication if they both run, which appears likely.

I do like the idea of candidates announcing their VP pick and Cabinet choices before the primaries, but the obvious problem is that excludes you from considering other Presidential candidates for those positions.
I'm not the biggest fan of him either, but he's well-respected in GOP circles and would lend credibility to our ticket in their eyes, plus he could help deliver South Carolina to us.

Johnson on the ticket doesn't help us much at all. He has zero name recognition outside New Mexico and libertarian political forums.

[Gage]

No.

Just no...

[Churchill2004]

Johnson would help immensely in the general election in terms of appealing to the independents/centrists and young voters who went so heavily for Obama in 2008. And his name recognition right now isn't really relevant- Ron Paul had zero name recognition outside of South Texas and libertarian political forums in 2006, too.

DeMint supported Romney in 2008, and he came in 4th in the SC primary.