View Full Version : One more reason to pick a VP before the primaries
noztnac
11-24-2007, 06:38 PM
If Ron Paul waits he may find that another candidate has picked off his VP choice.
Mark Sanford and Sarah Palin seem likely choices for the others to be interested in.
If Ron Paul picks either of these it will be a serious blow to the Republican establishment's ability to characterize him as a nut. Do they really want to undercut their rising political stars?
bbachtung
11-24-2007, 06:48 PM
Mark Sanford would be a huge coup; he is not a career politician (he limited himself to three terms in the House) and is just finishing up his term-limited second term as governor of South Carolina, and has consistently fought against government spending and new taxes -- even to the point of his own party working with Democrats to override his gubernatorial vetoes.
From what I've read South Carolina is having some sort of primary that might be just a little bit important.
johnscr
11-24-2007, 06:50 PM
If Ron Paul waits he may find that another candidate has picked off his VP choice.
Mark Sanford and Sarah Palin seem likely choices for the others to be interested in.
If Ron Paul picks either of these it will be a serious blow to the Republican establishment's ability to characterize him as a nut. Do they really want to undercut their rising political stars?
Traditionally running mates are selected after the nominations is complete. There would be some fall out for breaking with tradition though I agree perhaps it may be worthwhile.
I wouldn't worry about someone else stealing his VP though. Anyone with enough integrity and compatibility with Paul's platform would not run with anyone else
noztnac
11-24-2007, 06:58 PM
Traditionally running mates are selected after the nominations is complete. There would be some fall out for breaking with tradition though I agree perhaps it may be worthwhile.
I wouldn't worry about someone else stealing his VP though. Anyone with enough integrity and compatibility with Paul's platform would not run with anyone else
Yes, well I worked on Ron Paul's 1988 campaign and have this to say:
Traditionally Ron Paul has lost.
There's nothing conventional about this campaign and the internet has changed everything. It's time to break with tradition and establish that Ron Paul's candidacy is like no other. It would be a huge help to have someone else out there helping him deliver the message.
People are tired of political games and aware now more than ever that the system is becoming a game and that they are being manipulated. It's time for candidates to be honest and forthright with the American people.
There's nothing wrong with planning ahead. I think the American people will take it as a sign that he plans on winning.
weatherbill
11-24-2007, 07:08 PM
he needs someone who will be able to lay down their lives, seriously because it will make an assassin think twice before pulling the trigger becasue if the right VP, they would have tot ake out the VP as well as the Pres. ...... someone such as the federal reserve would try to assassinate ron paul, so having a VP with the same views, they would have to take out both the vp and the pres in order to stop Ron Paul's policies.......and usually, the vp and the pres. are kept seperate, so they couldn't perform such an evil to take back control.......if RP gets in, there will be some shady CIA and FBankster things going on to thrawt anything Ron Paul tries to do.........but I am ready. I would take a bullet for Ron Paul! And I know alotta other would too.
Charles Wilson
11-24-2007, 07:10 PM
It is never too early to start looking for a running mate. I suggest that Ron Paul consider Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma. Tom Coburn appears to be a man of his word. He and Ron Paul have a lot in common: "Dr. Coburn returned to Muskogee where he specializes in family medicine, obstetrics and the treatment of allergies. Dr. Coburn has personally delivered more than 4,000 babies. Dr. Coburn also is a two-time cancer survivor."
If I remember correctly, Ron Paul and Tom Coburn are the only two members of Congress that have supported the Constitution 100 percent. Their voting records speak volumes concerning their veiws on the Constitution and the government in general.
I think that Ron Paul should also name all the members of his cabinet before the first primary.
[I'm being sarcastic in case you can't tell.]
Yes, well I worked on Ron Paul's 1988 campaign and have this to say:
Traditionally Ron Paul has lost.
You know what? I stopped reading after you said that. Ron Paul has been elected ten times to Congress, three times as a nonincumbent. It's people who whine about how we need to do X because we'll never win who will sink this ship.
If Ron Paul were reading this thread, he'd be ashamed to have known you.
You know what? I stopped reading after you said that. Ron Paul has been elected ten times to Congress, three times as a nonincumbent. It's people who whine about how we need to do X because we'll never win who will sink this ship.
If Ron Paul were reading this thread, he'd be ashamed to have known you.
you should have kept reading.
noztnac
11-28-2007, 02:46 AM
You know what? I stopped reading after you said that. Ron Paul has been elected ten times to Congress, three times as a nonincumbent. It's people who whine about how we need to do X because we'll never win who will sink this ship.
If Ron Paul were reading this thread, he'd be ashamed to have known you.
There's nothing conventional about this campaign and the internet has changed everything. It's time to break with tradition and establish that Ron Paul's candidacy is like no other. It would be a huge help to have someone else out there helping him deliver the message.
People are tired of political games and aware now more than ever that the system is becoming a game and that they are being manipulated. It's time for candidates to be honest and forthright with the American people.
There's nothing wrong with planning ahead. I think the American people will take it as a sign that he plans on winning.
noztnac
11-28-2007, 02:52 AM
Ron Paul is a great guy and I'm sure he would welcome constructive criticism aimed at making his campaign more successful. This is in stark contrast to most other people in Washington who surround themselves with sycophants and insulate themselves from reality.
When I said Ron Paul lost in 1988 my point was not that he was a bad candidate but that there was not a system in place to promote him like there is now. There's absolutely no reason for him to run a conventional campaign by 1988 standards. The rules have changed entirely with the advent of the internet. This campaign has been successful so far because we are networking at the grssroots and making things happen. Ron Paul is basically the same candidate as he was in 1988 (which is a compliment by the way) but now Americans have the ability to make their voices heard, to network, and to win!
Menthol Patch
11-28-2007, 03:43 AM
Ron Paul should not pick a big government thug to be his VP.
He needs to pick someone as truly passionate about liberty as himself.
I think he should choose Steve Kubby!
BeFranklin
11-28-2007, 03:59 AM
Yes, well I worked on Ron Paul's 1988 campaign and have this to say:
Traditionally Ron Paul has lost.
LOl.
There's nothing conventional about this campaign and the internet has changed everything. It's time to break with tradition and establish that Ron Paul's candidacy is like no other. It would be a huge help to have someone else out there helping him deliver the message.
People are tired of political games and aware now more than ever that the system is becoming a game and that they are being manipulated. It's time for candidates to be honest and forthright with the American people.
There's nothing wrong with planning ahead. I think the American people will take it as a sign that he plans on winning.
Flirple
11-28-2007, 04:09 AM
It would raise his profile and help people envision Paul as president. Plus on a practical/logistical level we would have another person that could be campaigning and fund raising, and doing rallies, etc.
I nominate the Judge.
noztnac
11-30-2007, 07:02 AM
I didn't mean that "traditionally he has lost" as a slam against Ron Paul.
Just a dose of realism to remind us of what we are up against and how much harder we are going to have to work.
Ron Paul did not lose because of any deficiency in himself as a candidate but because he's up against this huge monstrous establishment.
lastnymleft
11-30-2007, 11:09 AM
This guy, Michael Doherty, seems pretty good. Definite position for him!:
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=167697
Napolitano for Attorney General. Get him in there to clean house, then eventually onto the Supreme Court.
Blowback
11-30-2007, 11:16 AM
Mark Sanford would be a good choice
Hurricane Bruiser
11-30-2007, 11:19 AM
From what I can tell, Mark Sanford would be a good VP pick politically and philosophically. Put the Judge in as AG and then to Supreme Court as lastnymleft said.
Adamsa
11-30-2007, 11:22 AM
If Ron were to get a majority, he would be unable to pick his own VP probably, there'd be a lot of pressure to get a warhawk in there.
lastnymleft
11-30-2007, 11:29 AM
If Ron were to get a majority, he would be unable to pick his own VP probably, there'd be a lot of pressure to get a warhawk in there.
That'd be a guaranteed way to get Dr Paul knocked off. The 2IC needs to have the same - or even more extreme - views as Dr Paul, so that they realize that it will do them nothing to eliminate him.
You lose one President, that's careless. You lose two, that's conspiracy.
ErythnulofSiren
12-01-2007, 07:53 PM
V.P. Pat Buchanan
(Seems agreeable to RP's positions on many things, and would help immensely in name recognition for the campaign.)
A.G. Judge Napolitano
(We need someone to restore confidence in this countries Federal law enforcement community.)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.