Originally Posted by
Article V
Sure, I can tell you exactly where I get that mentality.
First, it's important to note that I'm not talking about some pseudo-influence such as a prime-time speech at the convention. A speech's influence is fast-fading.
To be truly influential, exposure and message repetition are key (and these are the two things Ron Paul is quickly losing and would most certainly lose entirely if he isn't part of the next government). As a VP or Secretary of State or Secretary of the Treasure, Ron Paul would have regular international exposure and a real seat at the decision table of the administration. Even when Ron Paul's ideas are disregarded, the mere mention of them at the table would cause the discussion to shift and be more balanced and would cause everyone in the room to get smarter, simply because they're forced out of their groupthink comfort zone. Much like how Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Tim Geithner get regular press and regularly shape the cultural discussion as well as their own administration, even when Obama et al. disagree with them.
I believe I touched on some of this thinking in my OP, but hopefully this additional explanation helps clarify it further. If you need still more clarification, I would urge you to read the economics book The Wisdom of Crowds and the business book Where Good Ideas Come From to learn about how a sole dissenting voice in a room always, even when dismissed, reshapes the group's discussion and the overall outcomes of the group's decisions (whether that group is the Presidential Cabinet, the Senate, the Press Room, the American populace, or the world).