Rand Paul will NOT rule out running as Vice President

[Sal Featherstone]

Discussing the “internet chatter” about his becoming Romney's running mate, Sen Paul remarked, "I am interested in trying to shape direction and make our country more fiscally conservative. We'll have to see where it goes."

http://www.louisville.com/content/rand-paul-vice-president-opinion-arena

Before this gets whisked off to Hot Topics, let's stop for just a moment and think about this. Two years ago, Rand was an unknown eye doctor from Kentucky. Now he has a real shot at becoming Vice President of the United States and making a serious impact on this country.

What if part of the deal was a full audit of the Federal Reserve? What if part of the deal was appointing Rand to be in charge of cutting the budget? I mean SERIOUS cuts. It's worth at least discussing here rationally, without screams of "sellout!" or "defeatist!" Can we have a serious discussion about this?

[Rincewind]

Honestly?

Good for him. Maybe he catches flak from some people here, but at least he'd be trying to make a difference.

[CaptainAmerica]

Romney won't get my vote. I'd rather go to hell.

[Feeding the Abscess]

If Rand were commissioned to cut the budget, he wouldn't be allowed to touch the military. Zero interest in such a scenario.

[Sal Featherstone]

If Rand were commissioned to cut the budget, he wouldn't be allowed to touch the military. Zero interest in such a scenario.

How do you know?

[ByeByeBernanke]

Don't see it happening.

[Feeding the Abscess]

How do you know?

Mitt Romney is calling for a larger, more expensive military.

[speciallyblend]

will not rule out voting against a rand ticket. Romney is status quo biggovgop so rand accepting a vp =selling out to status quo= I will not vote for status quo.

[affa]

Hell no.

We're here to get Ron Paul elected. Stop with this nonsense. We won't accept Ron as VP, let along Rand. Mitt Romney is not an option. Dress him up with any VP you want, and he's still Mitt Romney, and he'll still lead this nation further to ruin.

President Paul 2012. Period.

[thoughtomator]

that's fine he doesn't have to rule out anything

if he actually does it, it's another story

[misterx]

Let's discuss it if it ever comes up. Right now let's make sure we have a better option. This country needs a Paul presidency now, not 8 years from now.

[Marky]

If Rand or Ron end up on the ticket with Romney, I will feel duped. Does Mitt want to continue supporting the Fed, the bailouts, the wars, and the police state? Of course he does, and he will continue to bow to his masters like he has all his life.

If Ron or Rand teamed up with this clown, then I would be convinced that his whole “movement” was a sham. Any discussion of a Romney/Paul alliance makes me physically ill.

[JordanL]

Personally, I don't think he'd accept expecting to win or get our votes. He'd be doing it to get the platform for a 2016 run.

[Xenophage]

Not a good idea. This is a philosophical battle, first and most importantly. Some temporary improvement economically will be meaningless.

[affa]

If Rand or Ron end up on the ticket with Romney, I will feel duped. Does Mitt want to continue supporting the Fed, the bailouts, the wars, and the police state? Of course he does, and he will continue to bow to his masters like he has all his life.

If Ron or Rand teamed up with this clown, then I would be convinced that his whole “movement” was a sham. Any discussion of a Romney/Paul alliance makes me physically ill.

Don't worry, it's not going to happen. The establishment knows we're winning, and they are floating this idea to us on a regular basis, in various versions, to see if any seem acceptable to us. Rand Paul as VP is the latest variant.

Hint: They won't work. President Paul 2012, with his choice of VP. No Ron Paul as VP - the media has a field day ridiculing the VP (think Quayle, Biden, etc). No establishment hack as VP for obvious reasons.

Hint #2: Any non-Paul Republican president in 2012 would prohibit Ron or Rand Paul in 2016, so is a non-starter. At least with Obama in 2012, we'd get a Paul in 2016... assuming the country hasn't crumbled by then, of course.

[cindy25]

picking a rival for VP is sort of tradition. most Dems would have preferred Hillary over Biden. and even Biden was a rival

Reagan did it, JFK did it, Dole did it, Clinton did it, Kerry did it.

surely VP Rand is preferable to VP Santorum, or VP Rubio?

and why should he rule out anything?

[kfking]

I wouldn't vote for a Romney / Ron ticket let alone Romney / Rand. However, I wouldn't necessarily hold it against Rand if he accepted the position, so long as he holds true to his principles. I personally think it would legitimize 'libertarians' as a force in the GOP.

I have little hope for the LP these days, particularly after the Bob Barr nomination in '08.

[kfking]

How do I delete this post? Accidentally posted twice

[Beitel]

If it happens, it'll only happen with the blessing of his father. And what could get his father's blessing? A promise from Romney to nominate Jim Grant as head of the Federal Reserve. He'll stop printing money. The government will have to cut the deficit that's financed by printing money. Which means an immediate 800-billion-dollar cut to the government.

Look. When the election's over, and if Ron Paul doesn't win, we'll lose the national stage to talk about our message. But if Rand Paul is Vice President, the message will still be out there.

If Romney doesn't keep his promise, you better believe Rand Paul won't keep silent. Now that'll be REAL DRAMA.

[cindy25]

doesn't the president have to appoint the Fed chairman/members from a list supplied by the fed?

the VP could issue pardons anytime he is acting president. surely in 4 years it would happen.

[Sal Featherstone]

Romney would not invite Rand onto the ticket unless there were going to be accompanying changes to the platform. The idea would be to attract Ron's voters and keep them fired up.

What if Romney agreed to:

1) Full audit of the Fed
2) Fire Bernanke and replace with Jim Grant
3) Bring troops from Afghanistan, Korea and Europe
4) Appoint Rand "budget cutter in chief" with the task of cutting 1 trillion per year

Would this be enough?

[Beitel]

I'm not sure. Ron Paul said himself on CNBC that he'd nominate Jim Grant, though.

Edit: Control the Fed, and you control everything. I don't see how we can sustain our empire, welfare state, and police state without the Fed monotizing everything and keeping interest rates artificially low. If we had real interest rates (~5%), interest rate payments would take up an even HUGER part of our budget.

[Sal Featherstone]

i agree it would be tough to get Romney to agree to reign in the Fed. that would be the toughest thing.

[economics102]

If Romney doesn't keep his promise, you better believe Rand Paul won't keep silent. Now that'll be REAL DRAMA.

Very true. Nothing could be more disastrous to a presidency than a public feud with the VP who represents the energized libertarian/conservative wing of your electorate.

Reminds me of that season of 24 where where President Wayne Palmer feuded with Vice President Daniels...

[HigherVision]

Compromising with the establishment is a horrible strategy for libertarians in my opinion. Look at the trajectory of the increase in support for Ron from '08 to now. In relatively short time our positions will be the most popular among voters so there's no need to water them down. The true blue, stick to my guns quality of Ron is what's attracting so many people to his campaign from a diverse array of backgrounds.

[lib3rtarian]

Before this gets whisked off to Hot Topics, let's stop for just a moment and think about this. Two years ago, Rand was an unknown eye doctor from Kentucky. Now he has a real shot at becoming Vice President of the United States and making a serious impact on this country.

What if part of the deal was a full audit of the Federal Reserve? What if part of the deal was appointing Rand to be in charge of cutting the budget? I mean SERIOUS cuts. It's worth at least discussing here rationally, without screams of "sellout!" or "defeatist!" Can we have a serious discussion about this?

A VP does not have the power to do any of this. If they make Rand a VP promising to do all this, get our votes in return and if they go back on their promises tomorrow, there is nothing we would be able to do.

[LibertyEagle]

Look at who is funding Romney's campaign. Now, do you really believe he would let Rand change the system?

[TruckinMike]

This thread needs to be deleted -- it serves no purpose --- and can only be harmful to the Ron Paul for PRESIDENT campaign.

TMike

PS-

---As God as my witness I will never again vote for the lessor of two evils, I will not ever vote for some Liberty thieving hack in the GOP. I refuse to vote for any more treasonous scum in the GOP ---

(even if Rand is VP)

[Dsylexic]

THIS IS CLASSIC COUNTER INTEL PSY OPS BY RAND. he is just confusing Mitt and making them lower their guard. HOLD everybody

[Rudeman]

All of this is assuming that Ron Paul isn't the nominee. So really it's presumptuous and hopefully we won't even need to consider such a scenario but I'll play along.

The VP has little power to do much so I don't really see the point of Ron Paul getting involved when he's fighting a battle of ideas and principle. He'd be better off leading the charge of getting more like minded individuals into Congress and maybe uniting coalitions to achieve certain achievements. Basically leading a Revolution.

Ultimately I think Rand Paul would be better off holding back and not getting tainted by Romney.

Really the only person to be VP for would be his father. If Ron Paul decides not to go for a 2nd term then Rand could carry on the torch (imagine 12 years of Paul, that should get us back on the right track).

[Cap]

Maybe, just maybe Rand is keeping the option open to run on his fathers ticket as VP. Have you thought about that?

[islather]

I think Ron is gonna win. But if not what about Romney/Rand and Ron in charge of the Fed.

[Jtorsella]

I would be interested depending on the situation.

[Patrick Henry]

I couldn't agree more.
A VP does not have the power to do any of this. If they make Rand a VP promising to do all this, get our votes in return and if they go back on their promises tomorrow, there is nothing we would be able to do.

[trey4sports]

I'm pretty sure Rand is just being accommodating and trying to stay above board. I don't believe he would honestly take the veep slot.

[FreeTraveler]

Rand's NOT going to get the VP slot, for the same reason Ron won't, and the same reason Ron wouldn't name Romney his VP. One three-named crazy and everything changes 180 degrees. Nobody's going to take that chance.

[Fredom101]

Once again, it's Ron Paul or NO ONE AT ALL! Hell no to a Romney/Rand scenario. :(

[moderate libertarian]

Why would any senator rule out hypothetical options about future?

Why should be this question a focus on this forum at present? It's a distraction.

[parocks]

The intrade odds right now are

87% Romney
3.4% Ron Paul

to win the Republican Nomination.

Some would say those numbers indicate that Romney has a chance to win.

Others might argue that it's more likely than not that Romney will be the nominee, based on those numbers.

So it's not folly to conjecture about what we would want Romney to give us to get our vote in the fall if Romney was to get the nomination.

[justinjj]

Romney/Rand is about as shitty as McCain/Palin. - I'm not voting for anyone but RON Paul.

[AuH20]

The intrade odds right now are

87% Romney
3.4% Ron Paul

to win the Republican Nomination.

Some would say those numbers indicate that Romney has a chance to win.

Others might argue that it's more likely than not that Romney will be the nominee, based on those numbers.

So it's not folly to conjecture about what we would want Romney to give us to get our vote in the fall if Romney was to get the nomination.

It's virtually over. If those polls in SC are correct. Romney will win the first 4 states. Pretty baffling.

[farrar]

Before this gets whisked off to Hot Topics, let's stop for just a moment and think about this. Two years ago, Rand was an unknown eye doctor from Kentucky. Now he has a real shot at becoming Vice President of the United States and making a serious impact on this country.

What if part of the deal was a full audit of the Federal Reserve? What if part of the deal was appointing Rand to be in charge of cutting the budget? I mean SERIOUS cuts. It's worth at least discussing here rationally, without screams of "sellout!" or "defeatist!" Can we have a serious discussion about this?

I won't vote for Romney. But I'd be happy for Rand anyway, even as I write his father in.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Yeah 12 years of Paul would be amazing. I don't think anything could make me vote for anyone but Ron Paul as POTUS.

[GunnyFreedom]

I wouldn't vote for a Romney / Ron ticket let alone Romney / Rand. However, I wouldn't necessarily hold it against Rand if he accepted the position, so long as he holds true to his principles. I personally think it would legitimize 'libertarians' as a force in the GOP.

I have little hope for the LP these days, particularly after the Bob Barr nomination in '08.

This exactly why I keep telling RPFers that it wouldn't be the unmitigated disaster so many seem to think it would be. I mean, it wouldn't get my vote and it certainly wouldn't capture enough Paulers to actually win, but politically it would be a long term victory for our influence on the party.

I still could not vote for Romney no matter who his VP was. But the people who freak out and say Rand would be a 'sellout' for accepting the 2nd spot on the ticket are not thinking clearly. We would double our influence on the GOP overnight if such a thing happened. That means our platform starts sweeping State level races, US Congress, and US Senate. Where the real change happens anyway.

So yeah, I am solid NOBP, but y'all who would call Rand a 'sell out' for doing this clearly aren't seeing the bigger picture. I've been saying since 2007 that State level races are more important than the Oval Office. I am still saying that today.

[noxnoctum]

Nope, unacceptable.

I'm not trying to be irritating to anyone so don't take it that way, voting for Romney though is just totally not going to happen for me. He's pretty much the antithesis of everything I believe in.

Frankly I find it baffling and a bit disheartening to see how many people here are actually considering this! Romney is a notorious flip flopper! Regardless of what he promises you have NO guarantee he will follow through with it and given his ties to the banking cartel I don't see why he would.

Why do people seem to have mass amnesia every 4 years regarding politician's promises? Cmon, you guys know better than to trust Romney...

Follow the money people, not the rhetoric.

[Occam's Banana]

So it's not folly to conjecture about what we would want Romney to give us to get our vote in the fall if Romney was to get the nomination.
As regards my vote, it *is* folly (and by folly, I mean "a complete & utter waste of time") because I will NOT vote for Romney - not even for dog-catcher - under *any* circumstances.

At least, not under any circumstances that have even the slightest chance of ever actually occurring in this or most other universes.

[noxnoctum]

Also I think this thread needs to get deleted, this has no place right now, we're in prime place to take second in South Carolina and then it's game on.

[jmhudak17]

It works as a strategic move to advance liberty by increasing Rand's chances to be President in the future and expanding his influence on the party. I'm for it.

[TC95]

Romney would not invite Rand onto the ticket unless there were going to be accompanying changes to the platform. The idea would be to attract Ron's voters and keep them fired up.

What if Romney agreed to:

1) Full audit of the Fed
2) Fire Bernanke and replace with Jim Grant
3) Bring troops from Afghanistan, Korea and Europe
4) Appoint Rand "budget cutter in chief" with the task of cutting 1 trillion per year

Would this be enough?

No, it would not be enough. I want all the troops brought home from everywhere and all foreign aid to be cut and no war with Iran or any other country that has not attacked us. Even if Romney promised me all those things, I would still never vote for him, no matter who his veep was, because he can't be trusted to keep his word.

[roderik]

Lets be realistic here. Rand pretty much rushed into senate, with no experience whatsoever.
I think it would be very shortsightet to put someone up as VP who has just started his political career.
A lot of voters will def. see this as a huge risk.

[Paulitics 2011]

What the hell is with all these threads recently?

If it comes up, we'll (the campaign will) decide. Can we focus on winning the nomination, or at least these few states, first?

[Peace&Freedom]

What the hell is with all these threads recently?

If it comes up, we'll (the campaign will) decide. Can we focus on winning the nomination, or at least these few states, first?



The main objective is to grow the power of the liberty movement, and get its agenda enacted as policy. In 2012, yes, it's NO ONE BUT PAUL. Let's get the nomination. Every competent planner has a Plan B, however, and that's what the Rand talk is about---it IS part of our focus. It's coming up as an issue now, so that's exactly why it's being discussed. Rand as VP is based on the theory that Romney will lose in November, and after a mere two month stint in the running mate spot, Rand gets the full inside track/"my turn" spot in the GOP universe come 2016.

Should Ron Paul win a ton of delegates before the convention but falls short of the mark to stop Mitt, he might cut a deal to not run third party or tell supporters to stay home, in exchange for Rand as VP. If Mitt welshes on the deal, Ron in turn DOES KO Romney's chances. The deal might also stipulate that Ron does not endorse Mitt, but Rand does, with Ron's approval.

[Moo2400]

Personally, I think Rand as the vice president in a Romney administration would be a bad thing for the liberty movement. I've said it before in another thread. Rand would be seen as part of the Romney administration and would thus be associated with it, which means he would have to answer for it like it or not. This would put him in the defensive, likely forcing him to defend a lot of what Romney would do as president.

Pair this with the fact that the vice president is a relatively weak position, weaker than being in the Senate where he could maintain his independence from a republican president's administration. Rand as Romney's VP seems like the establishment's dream - woo a sizeable chunk of Ron Paul supporters to vote republican and take an independent minded republican out of real power while putting him in a position where he would essentially be forced to go along with the status quo. This would have the effect of compromising the liberty movement and destroy Rand's ability to truly inherit the movement he started, which means we would scatter. Rand as Romney's VP would be the worst possible situation for us. We do not want this. Keep it as an endorsement for Romney from Rand and nothing more.

Which is why if he became Romney's running mate, I'd probably go vote for Gary Johnson in the libertarian party, which I'd do regardless if Ron Paul doesn't win.

[tasteless]

Ron Paul should select Pat Buchanan as his vice president, because that would even further troll both the left and right establishment.

[parocks]

As regards my vote, it *is* folly (and by folly, I mean "a complete & utter waste of time") because I will NOT vote for Romney - not even for dog-catcher - under *any* circumstances.

At least, not under any circumstances that have even the slightest chance of ever actually occurring in this or most other universes.

Ok. That's great. You're sending a clear message to everyone that ignoring Ron Paul and completely shutting him out is the rational approach.

Nice.

Thanks.

I personally would want something, but, hey, Ron Paul Supporters are such brilliant strategic thinkers. Romney might be thinking "hey, is there anything I can give Ron Paul supporters to get their vote?" and you come back with NO. Thank you so very very much. Always good to get nothing, always, right?

[pinkmandy]

Nope, unacceptable.

I'm not trying to be irritating to anyone so don't take it that way, voting for Romney though is just totally not going to happen for me. He's pretty much the antithesis of everything I believe in.

Frankly I find it baffling and a bit disheartening to see how many people here are actually considering this! Romney is a notorious flip flopper! Regardless of what he promises you have NO guarantee he will follow through with it and given his ties to the banking cartel I don't see why he would.

Why do people seem to have mass amnesia every 4 years regarding politician's promises? Cmon, you guys know better than to trust Romney...

Follow the money people, not the rhetoric.

+ rep

There is no compromise to be had with those who lie, who support an unjust monetary system that turns our kids into debt slaves, who talk of America's freedom in speeches but support legislation which takes it away and turn to murder and bombs instead of dialogue with our perceived "enemies". And that's just the tip of the iceberg. NO THANKS. Throwing us a meaningless bone that may or may not change things in 4, 8, 12 years is bs. I cannot in good conscience cast a vote for someone like Romney.

[Occam's Banana]

I personally would want something, but, hey, Ron Paul Supporters are such brilliant strategic thinkers.

And just what kind of "something" do you imagine you are going to get that will be worth anything at all in the long-run (or even the short-run)?

I ask because - rather than identifying what it is you think we have to gain by hopping on board with Romney & the GOP establishment - you seem more interested in directing sarcastic sneers at those who are skeptical that there is something worthwhile to be gained (rather than persuading them that you are correct).


Romney might be thinking "hey, is there anything I can give Ron Paul supporters to get their vote?" and you come back with NO. Thank you so very very much. Always good to get nothing, always, right?

I am quite sure that Romney (& the GOP establishment) is thinking just that.

So what? What do they have to offer that we should want?

A prime-time speaking slot at the convention?
Whoopty-doo!

A few anti-spending or "let's get tough on the FED" planks in the party platform - planks that will be assiduously ignored after the convention?
Sorry, try again.

A VP slot for Rand that will remove him from the Senate & put him in the all-important position of presiding over rubber-chicken state dinners?
Oh, yeah, that's just what the movement needs! Not to mention that it will load Rand up with plenty of Romney-administration baggage. Yummy!

So - what then? What, other than sops & crumbs, do you expect them to be willing to offer?


Ok. That's great. You're sending a clear message to everyone that ignoring Ron Paul and completely shutting him out is the rational approach.

I disagree with this characterization of the NOBP message.

Either the Ron Paul Revolution has the power & werewithal to follow through and seriously compromise the establishment GOP's ability to do "business as usual" - or it does not.

If it does not, then this is all just a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. In this case, Ron & Rand & the rest of us should just dash to snatch up whatever crumbs the establishment is willing to toss to us (because there is no hope of anything better). Or not - after all, if this is the best we have to hope for, it doesn't really make a difference.

But if it does, then it should do so! We would be shooting ourselves in the foot by accepting the establshment's buy-out offer. By doing that, we would, to paraphrase your statement, be "sending a clear message to everyone that offering superficial rhetoric & cosmetic changes is the rational approach."

[The Dude]

Would never vote for Romney, regardless of who the vice president is. If Rand joins Romney on his ticket that will force me to never vote for Rand if he ran for President. I'd certainly look elsewhere for a liberty candidate if that is the case. Rand as a vice president will accomplish NOTHING.

[evilfunnystuff]

Romney might be thinking "hey, is there anything I can give Ron Paul supporters to get their vote?" and you come back with NO. Thank you so very very much. Always good to get nothing, always, right?If he droped out and endorsed Ron, I wouldn't be opposed to Ron offering him a carefuly selected cabinet spot, he does like to fire people lol.

[qh4dotcom]

This exactly why I keep telling RPFers that it wouldn't be the unmitigated disaster so many seem to think it would be. I mean, it wouldn't get my vote and it certainly wouldn't capture enough Paulers to actually win, but politically it would be a long term victory for our influence on the party.

I still could not vote for Romney no matter who his VP was. But the people who freak out and say Rand would be a 'sellout' for accepting the 2nd spot on the ticket are not thinking clearly. We would double our influence on the GOP overnight if such a thing happened. That means our platform starts sweeping State level races, US Congress, and US Senate. Where the real change happens anyway.

So yeah, I am solid NOBP, but y'all who would call Rand a 'sell out' for doing this clearly aren't seeing the bigger picture. I've been saying since 2007 that State level races are more important than the Oval Office. I am still saying that today.

I would consider it for the same reasons...I'd love to see Rand debate Biden or Clinton in the VP debate...millions get raised for liberty, etc.

I recall some folks here wanted Obama or McCain to appoint Ron Paul for Secretary of the Treasury in 2008...so what would be the problem with Romney choosing Rand for VP or some other Cabinet position?

Also Romney might die of natural causes, Watergate 2.0 could happen, etc. and we'd get a President Paul.

[kylejack]

Not voting for this ticket.

[HoppForLiberty]

Maybe Rand as Prez and Romney as VP...but that's as far as it goes. What about Ron Paul as prez and Rand as VP?

[cindy25]

I would consider it for the same reasons...I'd love to see Rand debate Biden or Clinton in the VP debate...millions get raised for liberty, etc.

I recall some folks here wanted Obama or McCain to appoint Ron Paul for Secretary of the Treasury in 2008...so what would be the problem with Romney choosing Rand for VP or some other Cabinet position?

Also Romney might die of natural causes, Watergate 2.0 could happen, etc. and we'd get a President Paul.

VP yes, because its a fixed term constitutional office; cabinet n0-because one can be fired anytime, and has to do the presidents bidding.

[cindy25]

Maybe Rand as Prez and Romney as VP...but that's as far as it goes. What about Ron Paul as prez and Rand as VP?

would make the USA into a dynasty.

[parke]

Before this gets whisked off to Hot Topics, let's stop for just a moment and think about this. Two years ago, Rand was an unknown eye doctor from Kentucky. Now he has a real shot at becoming Vice President of the United States and making a serious impact on this country.

What if part of the deal was a full audit of the Federal Reserve? What if part of the deal was appointing Rand to be in charge of cutting the budget? I mean SERIOUS cuts. It's worth at least discussing here rationally, without screams of "sellout!" or "defeatist!" Can we have a serious discussion about this?

Word. Im down with that. We need to remember who Lee Atwater was and how he won.