PDA

View Full Version : Rand Paul/Mike Lee 2016




itshappening
01-02-2013, 12:53 PM
The Senate vote: Rand Paul/Mike Lee 2016
By Bernie Quigley - 01/02/13 08:00 AM ET

The Senate vote last night was a touchstone event, a benchmark, if you will, to mark the progress of history. It is, in that regard, much like the Senate vote to approve George W. Bush’s trillion-dollar vengeance assault on Iraq to bag Saddam — and in retrospect it is hard to see any other purpose for that adventure. But the Senate vote to approve the invasion in October 2002, told us who was brave when it was time to be brave and those lions of the Senate, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Joe Biden, who approved, then disapproved, were not. It has been zero-sum, no-fault politics ever since; we continue to vote them in and advance them to greater leadership — even after astonishing incompetence and systemic state failures in the Middle East — because we are familiar with them, because they have been around so long, because we have become a blindly partisanized nation, because we don't really care. But we are at a sea change and two to watch at the quiet turning of the tides today are Rand Paul and Mike Lee, senators from Kentucky and Utah, who voted against the fateful "fiscal cliff" agenda last night. The century might start this year with them.

Three other Republicans voted against: Old souls Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Richard Shelby of Alabama and young’un Marco Rubio, whom the old-line nostalgicos see as one of their own. That is, as George W. Bush and Dan Quayle were selected by a passing generation in its twilight years, they would like to be Rubio if they could be young again. But they will not be and they will not get to choose this time. The Tea Party has laid a new footing in the heartland and it will find its bearings now and heading into 2016.

Paul and Lee have added strength, maturity and character to the Senate since assuming office in 2011. They and they alone in the Senate have brought the Tea Party’s passionate rants to responsible and effectively engaged government. We start again with them. Both should have their eyes on the Oval Office in 2016.

And Rand Paul in particular might consider a conspicuous trip to Israel, as all do who look to the Oval Office. It would clarify things about Dad. Because Ron Paul, who opposed the Israeli lobby’s efforts and the neocon adventures in wonderland, was unfairly caricatured as an anti-Semite in his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. And Rand Paul would find kinship with Moshe Feiglin, the liberty candidate for the Knesset who opposed American influence in Israel since 2001. Feiglin’s rise to the Knesset this month has already changed the culture and historical trajectory of Israel. Israel rises to a new phase and a generational shift this year and potentially America does as well. These two, Rand Paul and Moshe Feiglin, rise in the world together and possibly fate intends for them to do so.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/lawmaker-news/275135-the-senate-vote-rand-paulmike-lee-2016

itshappening
01-02-2013, 12:55 PM
I like Mike Lee but not sure as a running mate. I think Rand would have to choose someone from a swing state or a purple state like Gov. Scott Walker (though no GOP contender has won WI for a long time).

Bastiat's The Law
01-02-2013, 01:20 PM
Mike Lee is definitely one of the good guys up there, but he strategically doesn't help the ticket. He should stay in the Senate.

compromise
01-02-2013, 01:20 PM
I agreed with Walker. Alternatively, a Tea Party latino like Chaffetz or Labrador could also work well.

georgiaboy
01-02-2013, 01:31 PM
Wait, did Rand's trip to Israel not happen in December as blogged about here (http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2012/11/30/brody-file-exclusive-rand-paul-to-visit-israel-next-month.aspx) and posted about here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?397138-Prominent-Evangelical-David-Lane-to-Take-Rand-Paul-To-Israel)?

If not, is it still in the works?

Romulus
01-02-2013, 01:32 PM
how about judge Nap, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Amash...? Anyone but Rubio.

Confederate
01-02-2013, 01:33 PM
Wait, did Rand's trip to Israel not happen in December as blogged about here (http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2012/11/30/brody-file-exclusive-rand-paul-to-visit-israel-next-month.aspx) and posted about here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?397138-Prominent-Evangelical-David-Lane-to-Take-Rand-Paul-To-Israel)?

If not, is it still in the works?

Uhh....


The trip will be privately funded, and The Brody File has learned that Sen. Paul will be accompanied by Christian and Jewish leaders. The trip is planned for January. They will tour all of the major historical and cultural sites.

Bastiat's The Law
01-02-2013, 01:34 PM
Bonus points to any tea party/liberty-minded minority VP candidate. That will prevent the Dems from using the race card and accusing us of being a party of old white men.

Too bad the most prominent minority republicans are atrocious: Rubio and Allen West

The most prominent republican woman is atrocious too: Condoleezza Rice

Bastiat's The Law
01-02-2013, 01:35 PM
how about judge Nap, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Amash...? Anyone but Rubio.
The Judge, no.

Williams and Sowell are too old and unknown; Sowell also endorsed the Iraq war.

Amash is too green and unknown.

Confederate
01-02-2013, 01:36 PM
Bonus points to any tea party/liberty-minded minority VP candidate. That will prevent the Dems from using the race card and accusing us of being a party of old white men.

Too bad the most prominent minority republicans are atrocious: Rubio and Allen West

The most prominent republican woman is atrocious too: Condoleezza Rice


Tim Scott? Bobby Jindal? (not tea party and atrocious, but minority) Ted Cruz?

Women: Ayotte, Nikki Haley, Kristi Noem...none very good.

compromise
01-02-2013, 01:37 PM
Bonus points to any tea party/liberty-minded minority VP candidate. That will prevent the Dems from using the race card and accusing us of being a party of old white men.

Too bad the most prominent minority republicans are atrocious: Rubio and Allen West

The most prominent republican woman is atrocious too: Condoleezza Rice

Allen West is gone. Also, a black on the ticket won't really be that much help, especially since the Dems already did it first.

Best to go with a Latino if it must be a minority. Cruz is fairly well known, but I don't know if he's eligible.

Confederate
01-02-2013, 01:40 PM
Cruz is fairly well known, but I don't know if he's eligible.

Ah right that's true. He was born in Calgary.

georgiaboy
01-02-2013, 01:42 PM
Uhh....

cool, thx. The blog was posted in November, title said next month, I assumed December was the month after November. silly me. :P

That said, hopefully the January planned trip will be added to the comments of the Rand/Lee article.

Bastiat's The Law
01-02-2013, 01:45 PM
Allen West is gone. Also, a black on the ticket won't really be that much help, especially since the Dems already did it first.

Best to go with a Latino if it must be a minority. Cruz is fairly well known, but I don't know if he's eligible.
I know West is gone, but his name got a lot of traction on other grassroots sites. A lot of confused tea party types loved him. I'm overjoyed he's gone because he's a part of the fake tea party class along with Rubio. These types of republicans only confuse the base of people we want in Rand's corner. These people are also the lowest hanging fruit for us, so having one of their darlings out of politics helped us immensely.

compromise
01-02-2013, 01:47 PM
Women: Ayotte, Nikki Haley, Kristi Noem...none very good.
Noem and Haley could work, but Noem isn't really well known. Ayotte, probably not.

Bastiat's The Law
01-02-2013, 01:48 PM
My gut says it will be either someone we don't know yet, someone relatively political unknown, and if that's the choice then they will most likely be a minority or woman, or both; or a well-known governor.

Bastiat's The Law
01-02-2013, 01:51 PM
There's always the safe choice of Demint.

compromise
01-02-2013, 01:57 PM
I know West is gone, but his name got a lot of traction on other grassroots sites. A lot of confused tea party types loved him. I'm overjoyed he's gone because he's a part of the fake tea party class along with Rubio. These types of republicans only confuse the base of people we want in Rand's corner. These people are also the lowest hanging fruit for us, so having one of their darlings out of politics helped us immensely.

West was good on the campaign trail, talking about fiscal responsibility, opposing the Obama troop surge, stopping nation building, ending the occupation of other countries and cutting defense spending, but sorta sold out once he got elected with that debt ceiling vote. He did have some alright votes though, like he voted for the Kucinich Libya resolution (legislation Rubio openly opposed). Overall, he was a big disappointment though, which is why he had such a bad (64%) Club for Growth rating, among the lowest from the 2010 Tea Party freshmen.

DrHendricks
01-02-2013, 02:22 PM
Noem is no friend to conservative/Libertarian values. She has consistently voted RINO over the last two years. She has hardly done anything in Congress. Her aye vote on the fiscal cliff bill last night was the absolute last straw for me. However, on the ballot last November it was only between her and a crazed global warming advocate Democrat. Needless to say, I left that part of the ballot blank.

Confederate
01-02-2013, 02:23 PM
Noem is no friend to conservative/Libertarian values. She has consistently voted RINO over the last two years. She has hardly done anything in Congress. Her aye vote on the fiscal cliff bill last night was the absolute last straw for me. However, on the ballot last November it was only between her and a crazed global warming advocate Democrat. Needless to say, I left that part of the ballot blank.

I just mentioned her because she, Ayotte, and Haley are the only "conserative" Republican women I can think of. (Well and Palin, who sadly is actually decent compared to the others)

ican'tvote
01-02-2013, 02:33 PM
Ted Cruz would be a great option if he's eligible. He would kick butt in the VP debate. DeMint is a more likely choice.

ctiger2
01-02-2013, 02:35 PM
I trust Mike Lee as much as I trust Ted Cruz. I don't.

supermario21
01-02-2013, 02:37 PM
I think John Kasich would be the man to go to. He's a straight-talker, has good budget credentials, had a record of opposing war when in the House, including sponsoring a bill that would have cut off money for American ground troops unless Congress gave approval in advance, and he's from Ohio.

Here was an interesting roll call from a bill where a YES would have withdrawn any funds for an invasion of Kosovo. RP and Kasich, among others voted yes, while current Republican senators Chambliss, Portman, and Toomey all voted no. He's definitely better than your standard Republican.

http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_1999-119.htm

Cowlesy
01-02-2013, 02:40 PM
Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

compromise
01-02-2013, 02:46 PM
I just mentioned her because she, Ayotte, and Haley are the only "conserative" Republican women I can think of. (Well and Palin, who sadly is actually decent compared to the others)

Ayotte is a centrist, not a conservative. She ran as a moderate, the Tea Party opposed her candidacy.

Confederate
01-02-2013, 02:49 PM
Ayotte is a centrist, not a conservative. She ran as a moderate, the Tea Party opposed her candidacy.

I know that, but compared to the Democratic candidates she will be viewed as a 'conservative' just like Romney and McCain were.

compromise
01-02-2013, 02:51 PM
I think John Kasich would be the man to go to. He's a straight-talker, has good budget credentials, had a record of opposing war when in the House, including sponsoring a bill that would have cut off money for American ground troops unless Congress gave approval in advance, and he's from Ohio.

Here was an interesting roll call from a bill where a YES would have withdrawn any funds for an invasion of Kosovo. RP and Kasich, among others voted yes, while current Republican senators Chambliss, Portman, and Toomey all voted no. He's definitely better than your standard Republican.

http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_1999-119.htm

Kasich seems interesting. His GOP convention speech was pretty good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ve3dYN5jD8

Confederate
01-02-2013, 02:54 PM
Problem with Kasich is he's not a minority. Sadly without one (or a woman) on the ticket it's going to be hard for the GOP to win.

Bastiat's The Law
01-02-2013, 02:58 PM
West was good on the campaign trail, talking about fiscal responsibility, opposing the Obama troop surge, stopping nation building, ending the occupation of other countries and cutting defense spending, but sorta sold out once he got elected with that debt ceiling vote. He did have some alright votes though, like he voted for the Kucinich Libya resolution (legislation Rubio openly opposed). Overall, he was a big disappointment though, which is why he had such a bad (64%) Club for Growth rating, among the lowest from the 2010 Tea Party freshmen.
Good riddance.

compromise
01-02-2013, 02:59 PM
Problem with Kasich is he's not a minority. Sadly without one (or a woman) on the ticket it's going to be hard for the GOP to win.
I think you're overestimating the power of minorities. Most Latinos in New Mexico voted for Susana Martinez's Democratic opponent when she ran for Governor.

Bastiat's The Law
01-02-2013, 03:02 PM
Problem with Kasich is he's not a minority. Sadly without one (or a woman) on the ticket it's going to be hard for the GOP to win.
But he is a governor of a vitally important state. Almost makes it a wash.

We have a severe drought of conservative, liberty-leaning minorities, especially women. :(

Smart3
01-02-2013, 03:02 PM
If Nikki Haley had the views and record of Sarah Palin, she'd be the perfect choice. Would all but guarantee a victory, assuming the Dem ticket is not Clinton/Castro, in which case I truly believe we can not possibly win.

Confederate
01-02-2013, 03:03 PM
But he is a governor of a vitally important state. Almost makes it a wash.

We have a severe drought of conservative, liberty-leaning minorities, especially women. :(

How are his approval ratings? If they're high then he would be an excellent pick. Can't win without Ohio.

Bastiat's The Law
01-02-2013, 03:06 PM
I think you're overestimating the power of minorities. Most Latinos in New Mexico voted for Susana Martinez's Democratic opponent when she ran for Governor.
I agree. I think experience and governorship trump the power of minorities. It would be nice to find it all manifested in one candidate.

supermario21
01-02-2013, 03:17 PM
The minority stuff is BS. We're far beyond voting for a person due to their ethnicity, and the people that might do so can only swing the pendulum back to the Republicans anyways. Kasich's approval ratings are back up after being down a year ago for going after union rights. However, the Democratic bench is weak in Ohio and I'd argue that Kasich is headed to an easy reelection. If he wins big, look out for him. Kasich is a bold man who will work on an agenda and do what he says. It makes his opponents angry but he has done everything he said he would and Ohio's economic status has skyrocketed since he took over for Strickland. He also has good budget credentials from his House days, and I provided a sampling of his military credentials. He has called himself a "cheap hawk."

http://www.ontheissues.org/OH/John_Kasich_Homeland_Security.htm#1999-4

Pretty sure he had a few bad votes along the way, but he hasn't done anything as governor that would really anger me.

This was a quote from him on defense spending in his book, published in 2007.

[In the 1980s], it was not good politics to go up against the pro-defense lobby, especially for a Republican. But I didn't think it was good government to keep signing up for these ridiculous expenditures. Most ridiculous of all, I came to think, was the development of the B-2 stealth bomber, which at the outset was presented as an essential weapon against the Soviets. I used to listen to the B-2 proponents, spinning all their tales of gloom and doom, and glory and might, and get the feeling I had steppe into some overproduced Cold War action movie. In any given year, the development of the B-2 was a small line item in the overall defense budget, but the long-term plans for the bomber would be realized at a staggering cost, over time. At anywhere from $1 billion to $2 billion per plane, it seemed a colossal misuse of taxpayer monies--and a misguided defense strategy, to boot--and I never understood why we needed to fly a plane inside the Soviet Union in the middle of a nuclear war. It made no sense.

AuH20
01-02-2013, 03:24 PM
Rand Paul and Susanna Martinez would be a potent duo, purely due to PR image.

SpreadOfLiberty
01-02-2013, 04:18 PM
Mike Lee is the safest choice, maybe after DeMint.

I am also interested in Ken Cucinelli, presumptively the next governor of Virginia.

If I was picking someone for the sake of picking a Latino my first pick would be Raul Labrador, followed by Ted Cruz.

Confederate
01-02-2013, 04:21 PM
Mike Lee is the safest choice, maybe after DeMint.

I am also interested in Ken Cucinelli, presumptively the next governor of Virginia.

If I was picking someone for the sake of picking a Latino my first pick would be Raul Labrador, followed by Ted Cruz.

Can't believe I forgot abut Cucinelli! He seems great.

I'd be happy with any of the following:
Cucinelli
Cruz (if he's eligible)
Lee
DeMint
Rubio (just kidding!)
Labrador
Kasich

itshappening
01-02-2013, 04:43 PM
it has to be someone from a swing state. two Southerners running will not work nowadays even though VP doesn't matter much

itshappening
01-02-2013, 04:45 PM
I like Walker purely because it may put Wisconsin in play and that would be another path to 270 votes.

Not many other candidates will put a state in play. Maybe Kaisch in Ohio.

Rudeman
01-02-2013, 04:45 PM
3 years is a long time and we may end up finding some better candidates. By then we'll also have an idea of where Rand is weak with and what he'll need to address if he becomes the nominee.

compromise
01-02-2013, 04:50 PM
I like Walker purely because it may put Wisconsin in play and that would be another path to 270 votes.

Not many other candidates will put a state in play. Maybe Kaisch in Ohio.
Virginia is also a potential swing state.

klamath
01-02-2013, 05:02 PM
We have a problem with female voters too.
Jeff flake
:D;)

Confederate
01-02-2013, 05:07 PM
We have a problem with female voters too.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4w4ap__Zl90/StU50mG0FHI/AAAAAAAAC9w/LuRVPF10Fw8/s1600-h/flake.jpg

:D;)

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkxy1vsiN31qfnxm4o1_400.jpg

talkingpointes
01-02-2013, 05:12 PM
The Judge, no.

Williams and Sowell are too old and unknown; Sowell also endorsed the Iraq war.

Amash is too green and unknown.

Had you heard of Barack Obama before 07'? We need to just pick good candidates. The media is going to beat down whoever you choose. Pick based on purity of principles and history. Amash is a damn good start, but isn't there an age limit?

compromise
01-02-2013, 05:24 PM
Had you heard of Barack Obama before 07'? We need to just pick good candidates. The media is going to beat down whoever you choose. Pick based on purity of principles and history. Amash is a damn good start, but isn't there an age limit?

Amash will be 35 by 2016.

pochy1776
01-02-2013, 05:34 PM
If Nikki Haley had the views and record of Sarah Palin, she'd be the perfect choice. Would all but guarantee a victory, assuming the Dem ticket is not Clinton/Castro, in which case I truly believe we can not possibly win.
Sadly, you'd be right. Wait, What about Paul/Takano.

talkingpointes
01-02-2013, 05:38 PM
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkxy1vsiN31qfnxm4o1_400.jpg

Gay men read that, not women. Just saying.

Confederate
01-02-2013, 05:40 PM
Gay men read that, not women. Just saying.

I had no idea. Do you have a subscription?

I have heard rumors about Schock being gay.

talkingpointes
01-02-2013, 06:21 PM
I had no idea. Do you have a subscription?

I have heard rumors about Schock being gay.

No. And I don't know. It just had to be said.

Smart3
01-02-2013, 06:48 PM
Sadly, you'd be right. Wait, What about Paul/Takano.
Takano is an unknown commodity, who will likely come under fire from the Dem establishment for not voting for big government. Paul/Kucinich is more realistic, but I think if we were going that route, Paul/Huntsman makes the most sense as a "Hey look, the VP is not identical to the P"

Confederate
01-02-2013, 06:50 PM
Takano is an unknown commodity, who will likely come under fire from the Dem establishment for not voting for big government.

And he's a ****. That will hurt Rand with conservatives.

Smart3
01-02-2013, 08:00 PM
And he's a ****. That will hurt Rand with bigots.

Fixed for you.

misean
01-02-2013, 09:16 PM
My guess is if Rand Paul won the nomination Rubio would be his first choice (and I don't think it's close,) unless Rubio's stock drops significantly in the next 4 years.

Bastiat's The Law
01-02-2013, 09:23 PM
Mike Lee is the safest choice, maybe after DeMint.

I am also interested in Ken Cucinelli, presumptively the next governor of Virginia.

If I was picking someone for the sake of picking a Latino my first pick would be Raul Labrador, followed by Ted Cruz.
I'm sure Demint, Cucinelli (if he becomes governor), Labrador, and several others would be on a short lift.

Bastiat's The Law
01-02-2013, 09:24 PM
Can't believe I forgot abut Cucinelli! He seems great.

I'd be happy with any of the following:
Cucinelli
Cruz (if he's eligible)
Lee
DeMint
Rubio (just kidding!)
Labrador
Kasich
Good short list so far.

Bastiat's The Law
01-02-2013, 09:26 PM
3 years is a long time and we may end up finding some better candidates. By then we'll also have an idea of where Rand is weak with and what he'll need to address if he becomes the nominee.
His weakness is a lack of any governing experience and foreign policy experience.

Bastiat's The Law
01-02-2013, 09:35 PM
My guess is if Rand Paul won the nomination Rubio would be his first choice (and I don't think it's close,) unless Rubio's stock drops significantly in the next 4 years.
Rumor is that they don't like each other at all, which makes sense. Besides, they will be throwing haymakers at each other during the primary.

itshappening
01-02-2013, 11:06 PM
Rubio is controlled by the same people who were behind Cheney and they don't like Rand at all. In fact, Rubio's chief of staff wrote an op-ed for POLITICO attacking Ken Buck of Colorado on foreign policy and saying "we don't need more Rand Paul's in the Senate"

misean
01-02-2013, 11:23 PM
I still think all else being equal Rubio would be his first choice.

A lot is going to have to go right for Rand to win and I think he would pick whoever will politically help the ticket the most. The 2016 primary is going to be much tougher than 2012. Hopefully Rand comes ready to play. I'm incredibly impressed by him.

itshappening
01-02-2013, 11:32 PM
Why Rubio? are you kidding? his entire staff hate Rand and are from the Bush administration.

I don't see Rand picking Rubio or vice versa in any way shape or form.

Pisces
01-02-2013, 11:40 PM
I think the power of veep picks to sway votes is somewhat overrated. If Rand is the nominee, he should choose someone that he knows is qualified and that he can work with. Also it'll need to be someone that won't embarass him or his campaign. If the person is also from a swing state or a minority, then he should go ahead and choose that person. It shouldn't be seen as a guarantee that will by itself win swing state or minority votes.

Bastiat's The Law
01-03-2013, 12:25 AM
I think the power of veep picks to sway votes is somewhat overrated. If Rand is the nominee, he should choose someone that he knows is qualified and that he can work with. Also it'll need to be someone that won't embarass him or his campaign. If the person is also from a swing state or a minority, then he should go ahead and choose that person. It shouldn't be seen as a guarantee that will by itself win swing state or minority votes.
Qualified...that screams out Demint to me.

No way in hell Rand taps Rubio.

Pisces
01-03-2013, 12:40 AM
Qualified...that screams out Demint to me.

No way in hell Rand taps Rubio.

I agree. I think Rubio has baggage and that's why even Mitt Romney didn't pick him. Plus, I think it is true that they don't like each other.

pochy1776
01-03-2013, 01:15 AM
And he's a ****. That will hurt Rand with conservatives.

Crap did not know that.

AuH20
01-03-2013, 01:25 AM
And he's a ****. That will hurt Rand with conservatives.

A **** sapien?

pochy1776
01-03-2013, 01:34 AM
A **** sapien?
Smart3 will make an other condescending remark towards stupid so-cons.

Havax
01-03-2013, 01:46 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27sG47P-fvs

compromise
01-03-2013, 04:16 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27sG47P-fvs

How can someone who isn't from a state, help win any states?

I don't understand the reasoning behind Rubio either. Jack Hunter is always writing hit-pieces on Rubio accusing him of being a neiconservative, and he's very close to Rand, probably Rand's chief ghostwriter. Rubio has also called the 10 Senate and 87 House Republicans who voted against military intervention in Libya far-right/far-left people and who don't stand for a strong national defense as conservatives should (ironically in interviews with liberal news outlets and speeches at liberal think tanks), evidently directing it most at Rand Paul.

Also, if most Mexicans in New Mexico didn't vote for ethnic Mexican Susana Martinez, do you seriously expect them (and Guatemalans, Nicaraguans and Columbians) to vote for some white Cuban guy on the bottom of the ticket? The best way to get Latino support is not to throw "one of them" on the ticket, but to have a successful Latino outreach programme, as Ron Paul did. People will vote for whoever they perceive to be working in their interests. They are not idiots and are very aware that someone from their own ethnic background (or some other similar ethnic background in the case of Rubio) may not be working in their interests. Hence Republicans must convince Latinos that they are through a successful campaign focusing on things Latinos and conservatives have in common. Otherwise, they will vote Democrat even if the Dems throw two white Southerners on their ticket.

misean
01-03-2013, 09:44 AM
He would pick whoever will complement the ticket the most. Someone like Luis Fortuno or Martinez seem very possible. I'm just saying Rubio because Rubio is the big favorite over everyone else to get the nomination right now. He's not going to pick Mike Lee or Jim Demint or Justin Amash or anybody like that. The odds of that happening are zero. He's not picking Jim Demint. Jim Demint doesn't help him win swing state and is pretty universally disliked by Republicans and independents. (I like him but what I like doesn't matter.) I think people are basing on what they would like to see happen not what is even in the realm of possibility. Romney's veep choice was someone who at least seemed very different, likewise with Bush I, Bush II (perceived at least) and Reagan.

I'm only saying what I think seems likely. I would love a Rand Paul/Andrew Napolitano ticket. I also realize that everything will have to break in Rand's favor for him to win and he is going to maximize his odds of winning. Just to be in reality he is probably less than 2% to win the Presidency right now. Winning the primary is going to be really tough and winning a general election might even be tougher vs a Cuomo or Hilary candidate.

Slutter McGee
01-03-2013, 06:54 PM
I trust Mike Lee as much as I trust Ted Cruz. I don't.

Probably as much as you don't look at voting records either.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Confederate
01-03-2013, 06:56 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27sG47P-fvs

Ineligible.


Fortuño is not eligible to be vice president/president. There is a 14 year US residency requirement to be president (and therefor vice president as well) and Fortuño does not meet it. Puerto Rico does not count as the US for this purpose.


No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

An April 2000 report by the Congressional Research Service, asserts that citizens born in Puerto Rico are legally defined as natural born citizens and are therefore eligible to be elected President, provided they meet qualifications of age and 14 years residence within the United States. According to this report, residence in Puerto Rico and U.S. territories and possessions does not qualify as residence within the United States for these purposes.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30527.pdf/

Even if Puerto Rico became a state before 2016, he still wouldn't be eligible.

He'd only have the time since Puerto Rico became a state that counts as residency within the US. The time before would still count as residency in an unincorporated (that being the key) territory.

There was talk about Goldwater being ineligible to run for president because he was born in Arizona before it became a state, but he was deemed eligible because the Arizona Territory was an incorporated US territory, as opposed to PR, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, which are unincorporated.

Interestingly, Puerto Rico may be a US possession, but it is an unincorporated territory and therefore the US Constitution does not automatically apply in its entirety in unincorporated territories, something established in the SCOTUS Insular Cases and reaffirmed by Harris v Rosario (1980). As an unincorporated territory, the provisions of the Constitution and in some cases citizenship have been extended onto the people, not the territory itself by extending the protections under the privileges and immunity clause to that territory (extended to Puerto Rico by act of Congress in 1947).

Havax
01-04-2013, 04:20 PM
Chris Christie might actually be a good choice too. It would be after he secured the GOP nomination, so the conservatives will still turn out to vote that hate Christie anyway. Christie is against the drug war, and has no public statements about foreign policy, so he could easily just adopt Rand's anti-interventionist rhetoric. By the way, Christie is the ONLY republican besides Ron Paul that I've seen diehard democrats say they could see themselves voting for.

itshappening
01-04-2013, 04:49 PM
Are you kidding? Christie is a big spending Republican, the budget hole in NJ is growing and he's begging for pork. Plus, he sucks up to Obama.

Also, NJ will never be put in play by a VP pick so it's pointless trying that. They will vote for the Democrat, by 20 points.

Bastiat's The Law
01-04-2013, 05:19 PM
Are you kidding? Christie is a big spending Republican, the budget hole in NJ is growing and he's begging for pork. Plus, he sucks up to Obama.

Also, NJ will never be put in play by a VP pick so it's pointless trying that. They will vote for the Democrat, by 20 points.
Yup.

Anti-Neocon
01-04-2013, 05:21 PM
As far as Republicans go, Christie isn't too bad and would give Rand the best chance of winning. I don't think he has many strong political beliefs and would defend Rand whenever needed. He's also greatly respected by many swing voters, and even Democrats, although I'd imagine the Dems will start hating him again soon enough.

alucard13mmfmj
01-04-2013, 05:31 PM
The VP has to be someone that is not too evil... because in the event Rand somehow miraculously became president. He might have an accident or a crazed gunman that incapacitates him.

itshappening
01-04-2013, 05:42 PM
As far as Republicans go, Christie isn't too bad and would give Rand the best chance of winning. I don't think he has many strong political beliefs and would defend Rand whenever needed. He's also greatly respected by many swing voters, and even Democrats, although I'd imagine the Dems will start hating him again soon enough.

Don't be stupid.. Christie is a loud mouth who hails from a state that will vote Democrat by 20 points. The point of a VP pick nowadays is to try and put a swing state in play.

And if he defends Rand like he defended Boehner the other day I think he'd kill the campaign.

Bastiat's The Law
01-04-2013, 06:06 PM
Christie pretty much sucked as a campaigner for Romney. I know it's hard to get excited for Romney, but still. And New Jersey will go dem anyway.

compromise
01-04-2013, 06:09 PM
What if another hurricane hits and Christie starts campaigning for Cuomo?

Bastiat's The Law
01-04-2013, 06:12 PM
Good point. Christie is like a rabid dog, he has no sense of loyalty and will just as soon bite you as he would the dems.

supermario21
01-04-2013, 06:14 PM
Christie is looking out for his own interests. He wouldn't play second fiddle to anyone.

compromise
01-04-2013, 07:25 PM
Christie is an unwise choice for a lot of reasons. Best not to go with him.

itshappening
01-04-2013, 07:58 PM
Good point. Christie is like a rabid dog, he has no sense of loyalty and will just as soon bite you as he would the dems.

He's a load mouth idiot desperate to seem "cool" to the NJ Democrat voting crowd.

compromise
01-05-2013, 06:21 AM
He's a load mouth idiot desperate to seem "cool" to the NJ Democrat voting crowd.
NJ Democrats will never vote VPOTUS candidate Christie over POTUS candidates Clinton (Senator from New York) or Cuomo (Governor of New York).

Anti-Neocon
01-06-2013, 05:17 AM
Don't be stupid.. Christie is a loud mouth who hails from a state that will vote Democrat by 20 points. The point of a VP pick nowadays is to try and put a swing state in play.

And if he defends Rand like he defended Boehner the other day I think he'd kill the campaign.
Christie would help Rand appeal to independents all across the country, and lure in the big money donors. Remember all the millionaires were holding out on sending money to Romney cause they didn't know if Christie would get in the race? He's also not going to turn against his own ticket as someone suggested, cause he'll be in perfect shape to become President in 8 years if his ticket wins.

The point of the VP would be to help Rand win, not to make policy decisions, and the Dems are going to be extremely difficult to beat in 2016 so gotta put our best foot forward here and not risk putting a Democrat in office cause the VP must be ideologically pure. The VP is mostly a figurehead, and will follow whatever policy the President pursues. The majority of voters dislike the "Tea Party" and think it is too conservative, and putting a moderate on the ticket would help immensely.

Also Hispanics are overrated in importance. Except for in Florida, and maybe Nevada, the large majority of swing states have a disproportionate white population, and blacks are the more prevalent minority. And it's hard to imagine the GOP ticket winning Ohio and Virginia and losing Florida, which would be virtually the only situation where Florida would even matter.

itshappening
01-06-2013, 07:32 AM
Christie would help Rand appeal to independents all across the country, and lure in the big money donors. Remember all the millionaires were holding out on sending money to Romney cause they didn't know if Christie would get in the race? He's also not going to turn against his own ticket as someone suggested, cause he'll be in perfect shape to become President in 8 years if his ticket wins.
.

your dead wrong if you think Christie can help Rand "across the country". Christie is a loud mouth who's style is not appreciated outside New jersey or New york. Maybe he can help Rand there but the GOP nominee is going to lose those states so it;s not much help.

And not turning against his own ticket?? He turned against Romney and Boehner and that's just in the last few months. Christie doesn't care about anyone else but himself. He would be a disaster as a VP pick and it doesn't accomplish anything.

Millionaires held money from Romney? Romney was swimming in money.

Anti-Neocon
01-06-2013, 08:07 AM
your dead wrong if you think Christie can help Rand "across the country". Christie is a loud mouth who's style is not appreciated outside New jersey or New york. Maybe he can help Rand there but the GOP nominee is going to lose those states so it;s not much help.
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/chris-christie-best-rated-in-2016-field-poll-says-85237.html

The polls refute your assertion. Christie is by far the Republican with the most national appeal, at least at the moment.


And not turning against his own ticket?? He turned against Romney and Boehner and that's just in the last few months.
He would never turn against his own interest, and his interest right now is getting re-elected in a pretty strongly blue state.


Christie doesn't care about anyone else but himself. He would be a disaster as a VP pick and it doesn't accomplish anything.
Regardless of who he cares about, he would be a strong VP pick.


Millionaires held money from Romney? Romney was swimming in money.
Yes, they did.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/10/06/romneys-cash-swells-after-christie-opts-out/

itshappening
01-06-2013, 06:17 PM
Christie is not all he's cracked up to be. I guarantee you his style is no good outside his base of New Jersey or New York. Polls right now are just showing that he has name recognition nothing more.

Secondly, what does it accomplish as a VP pick? It will not help Rand in NJ/NY because they're going to vote for the Democrat by 25 points, it's not going to help in swing states where his loud mouth is more likely to get him into trouble and people aren't going to flock to the ticket because a loud mouth big government Republican from New Jersey might be Vice President.

The main consideration for a VP pick is if they can help in a swing state or put a purple state in play where victory or expanding the map is critical in what could be a close election, such states like WI, MI, PA, OH, VA and there are better candidates to do that than the loud mouth Christie.

I don't see why you're a fan of this blustering fool. He just went on TV and denounced Boehner. He toured Sandy victims with Obama but refused to do so with Romney. He ain't a team player and cares only about himself. It's unlikely anyone will be enthused if he's on the ticket.

Anti-Neocon
01-09-2013, 01:54 AM
Home state advantage is strongly overrated. Romney/Ryan still lost by 6 points in Wisconsin. In order for the GOP to win in 2016, they'll need to win Ohio, Virginia, and one of the gray states here: http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=bCxp.

The reason why I don't consider Florida to be a crucial swing state is that it's almost completely implausible to see the GOP lose Florida while winning Ohio and Virginia, and one of the gray states.

So what VP pick is going to help Rand win one of the gray states and also OH, and VA? Christie should be of significant appeal in libertarian/independent-leaning NH and CO, and get enough of the independents in OH and VA to give Rand the best shot of winning.

What Christie offers is defending Rand from BS charges, making the ticket more palatable to anti-Tea Party independents, and bringing money in while not completely selling out to his base. Christie isn't great on the issues but winning is the most important when the Dems will probably be looking strong in 2016.

Who else would you suggest as options for Rand? The other options either would kill the funding and turn off the anti-Tea Partiers (Lee/Napolitano/Amash/Cuccinelli, Walker etc), or sell out to the neocons (Rubio for example). The only real alternative to Christie seems to be John Kasich, who isn't exactly a liberty guy but could help Paul secure Ohio and one of the other midwest swing states, as his popularity is rebounding.

Anti-Neocon
01-10-2013, 05:10 PM
Christie has a 51-23 favorability split among all registered voters, 52-18 among independents (compared to 37-35 for Rand), and is only down 44-42 to Hillary.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_011013.pdf