Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where people are themselves free.”     Theodore Roosevelt

October 18, 2007

Vice-President Ron Paul ?

by Doug Mataconis

Rojas speculates over at The Crossed Pond:

What else is the VP slot for? Setting aside the pro-liberty voters who might otherwise be lost to the Democrats–again, many of them in critical swing states–there’s a huge element of Ron Paul’s supporters who wouldn’t otherwise vote AT ALL. In an election that otherwise promises to be very close, what candidate wouldn’t want a couple hundred thousand new supporters? Especially when many of those supporters are also potential donors.

It’s easy for me to imagine people who wouldn’t otherwise vote for a Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee suddenly deciding to do so because Ron Paul is on the ticket. It is, conversely, very difficult for me to imagine people who would otherwise support a Thompson or Huckabee choosing NOT to support the candidate because Ron Paul’s around. Yes, many Republicans dislike Ron Paul intensely, but I don’t know that any of them dislike him more intensely than they dislike Hillary Clinton. Independents might conceivably be scared by the prospect of a drug legalizing gold-standard advocate a heartbeat away from the Presidency, but it’s hard to see them voting on that with a relatively healthy and vigorous Presidential contender at the top of the ticket.

While I can’t imagine how any voter who is really pro-liberty could fathom voting for Madame Hillary, I think there’s a point to be made about voters like that just staying home on Election Day. Frankly, there’s I strong likelihood I might do that myself just because I’m sick of wasting my voting on the Libertarian Party.

If Ron Paul were the Vice-Presidential nominee, though, and someone other than Rudy Giuliani were at the top of the ticket (there’s no way a Giuliani-Paul ticket would ever come about), then enough of the voters who supported Paul in the primaries might just decide to vote Republican in November `08. But there are several caveats to this argument.

First of all, it’s been quite awhile since a Vice-Presidential nominee has had a significant impact on the Presidential race. The last time arguably being 1960 when Kennedy added LBJ as his Vice-Presidential nominee, thus ensuring that dead people in Boston, Chicago, and Texas would vote Democratic that year. Since then, the VP slot has been graced by such august leaders as Spirow Agnew, Geraldine Ferraro, and Dan Quayle.

Second, there are really only a few scenarios where Ron Paul as the Vice-Presidential nominee makes sense. One would be a Republican Convention where no candidate had enough delegates to win, but that hasn’t happened since the 1940′s and it’s unlikely to happen in 2008. The other would be where Paul was able to bring in enough support during the primaries to show that he was an electoral force. If that doesn’t happen, then he’s unlikely to be on anyone’s short list.

Finally, I’ve got to wonder what value there would be in having Ron Paul as Vice-President. John Adams spent eight years in the office and described it thusly:

“My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.”

Or, as one 20th Century occupant of the office famously put it:

“not worth a bucket of warm piss.”

In the end, if he doesn’t win the nomination, Paul would do more good returning to Congress than taking a meaningless job.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/10/18/vice-president-ron-paul/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

57 Comments

  1. Honestly I would not vote for any of the others. Even if they stated that they would have Ron Paul as there VP.
    I would on the other hand like to see
    Pres. Ron Paul
    VP. Denis Kucinich

    I think it would be a nice balance to have two pro constitution representing the executive branch. Even with the VP being from the Dem.

    Rudy Paul ticket would never happen. They are in such opposition. One is for fascism the other for liberty. Its like having Hitler and Ghandi on the same ticket.

    Comment by B.Young — October 18, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
  2. Classic Mataconis.

    That’s not a compliment.

    Comment by Buckwheat — October 18, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
  3. I’d much rather have Paul in congress than VP. Remember he’s 72 years old if the President served 2 terms Paul would be 80 before he could run for the top spot.

    Comment by Bob — October 18, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
  4. The VP spot is used for people seeking power. Ron Paul could give two spits for the power and glory of it all.

    Even though it’s a new ball game some people are still showing up with the same old crappy equipment.

    Comment by Jimmy — October 18, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
  5. One thing you’re missing is the potential media exposure to the VP. If a pro-freedom R candidate other than Paul suddenly rose to the top of the pile, Paul’s job as VP could be to go on TV weekly and educate the American public about stuff like the gold standard and how bad economics screws the poor and middle class, etc. Such a pulpit would be FAR more valuable to the burgeoning movement than remaining in Congress amongst the dimwits and traitors (who will, after all, only move in a positive direction at the point of a pitchfork).

    I offer as an example what I think would be the ultimate dream ticket to break the back of the two-party system in our country: OBAMA/PAUL independent. What would be great about that is the opportunity for Paul to push Obama in a more centrist direction fiscally and foreign affairs-wise, with Obama pulling Paul’s principled stances into the limelight. In any case, I think that’s more of a pipedream than anything else, although Obama does not appear to be angling at getting on Clinton’s ticket, with the way he’s been attacking her (and good for him).

    But I think dismissing the VP spot out of hand is silly. Running for Pres has been the best exposure the liberty movement’s gotten in my lifetime (I am 30). 4 years of being impossible to ignore as the VP would be far more valuable to the national movement than remaining Dr. No in Congress (however valuable that would be to his constituents back home).

    Seriously, this is something to think about.

    Comment by bret — October 18, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
  6. Classic Mataconis.

    That’s not a compliment.

    What’s not worth a bucket of warm piss is any of your comments.

    Comment by Joshua Holmes — October 18, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
  7. I am really ashamed of ” Liberty Papers”. Please change your name, you dont deserve to be called the liberty papers. How can you call yourself liberty papers when you have been constantly bashing the only guy that has been fighting for your liberty. And now when you see his support, you think he might be a good VP. I have seen nothing here on this other than taking a small issue and try to make it into a giant elephant. Why dont you question, Why arent presidental candidates following the constitution coz that is the only law they have to uphold? Three things liberty papers have to learn: Integrity, Honesty and Moral Authority which you guys seems to lack yet those are the same qualities which make our candidate RON PAUL Great.

    Comment by Jack — October 18, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
  8. We dont strive for second place.

    Comment by Jack — October 18, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
  9. Hi Bret,

    Yes – did you also notice the resemblance of Paul vs Obama in the general to Vinick vs Santos in “The West Wing”? I actually thought Vinick and Santos would pair up as President/VP. If only real life was so romantic…

    Comment by Xavier — October 18, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
  10. Ron Paul would never join the CFR in ’08 ticket.

    Comment by Curtis — October 18, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
  11. I was actually thinking about this the other night…if Fred Thompson won the nomination and chose Ron Paul as his running mate (or vice versa), I could see that as a circumstance where I’d consider voting for Thompson. I doubt Ron Paul would consider joining a campaign that actually intended to run an aggressive foreign policy or one that was incompatible with general libertarian principles and if he did join Thompson’s campaign I’d take that as a signal that Thompson’s only advocating an aggressive foreign policy because he thinks it will win him the election (and he’ll abandon it once he’s in office). But I honestly couldn’t see Paul accepting the nomination from Thompson on the policy platform Thompson’s currently running if he intends to stick with it, nor could I see him accepting the VP slot from any of the other Republican candidates. Right now Paul and the GOP are almost from different planets, and frankly I doubt they’d even offer the slot to him.

    Comment by UCrawford — October 18, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
  12. If Ron Paul is not nominated, I will write him in. After the last 8 years, I will never again waste my vote on the “lesser of two evils”.

    Comment by Jaso — October 18, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
  13. You know Ron’s not going to be a VP choice.

    Why post?

    Comment by Willis Williams — October 18, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
  14. frankly I doubt they’d even offer the slot to him.

    You’re right. If they did, it would be out of pure desperation to unite the party. They don’t understand Paul, so they can’t predict him and they can’t anticipate his moves.

    I can’t imagine them taking the risk that he would turn them down. Whether he would or wouldn’t is immaterial. They would have to be incredibly desperate to go that far out on the limb.

    Comment by Jeff Molby — October 18, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
  15. Frankly, there’s I strong likelihood I might do that myself just because I’m sick of wasting my voting on the Libertarian Party.

    Say what?

    I can empathize with those who consider it a “waste” to vote for their long term interest instead of their short term interest, but how the heck can you say with a straight face that staying home is less of a waste than voting LP??

    If _nothing_ else, voting LP at least does two things.
    - It says, “I’m here and I care, but I despise the se choices”
    - It helps LP stay on the ballot which frees them up to spend money on things more important than petitions.

    Comment by Jeff Molby — October 18, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
  16. Staying home says, “I don’t care enough to even cast a protest vote.”

    Ya know what a typical politician says to that? “Cool, thanks. Tell your peers to stay home too.”

    And that is why Buckwheat is largely correct when he accuses you of reinforcing the status quo.

    It doesn’t matter how many times you espouse libertarian principles, if you follow each one with “but…”, you’re undermining our efforts.

    Comment by Jeff Molby — October 18, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
  17. I haven’t seen any evidence that Ron Paul is willing to compromise his positions even to improve his chances of winning the presidency, still less can I imagine him compromising to win the vice-presidency. But compromise is necessary in a VP. He is expected to defend the position of the presidential candidate whether he agrees with it or not.

    Comment by rob — October 18, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
  18. doug mata’s entire existence at thelibertypapers, in my estimation, is to give this website a lot of traffic. using ron paul as a vehicle to that purpose is very efficient.

    i can’t recall any real insight to anything mata has ever written here. what he does accomplish well is riling up smear stories the likes of which rival some of the best stuff you could see at townhall.com or redstate. lately though his attempts are so baldfaced without even the thinnest pretext of genuine analysis. one thing too, remember that mata is actually a neocon-ish libertarian. there actually are quite a few hardcore pro-GWOT libertarians, of which mata is one of them, dave nalle would be another.

    if there is anything i could actually thank mata for, or more appropriately thelibertypapers.org for, is posting long video clips of RP such as the clips at the Taft Speech. that is nice, as the bandwidth for the clips is likely costly.

    Comment by oilnwater — October 18, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
  19. if there is anything i could actually thank mata for, or more appropriately thelibertypapers.org for, is posting long video clips of RP such as the clips at the Taft Speech. that is nice, as the bandwidth for the clips is likely costly.

    They’re hot-linking to YouTube. Google is footing that bill.

    Comment by Jeff Molby — October 18, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
  20. oh, then scratch that.

    Comment by oilnwater — October 18, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
  21. Anyone who thinks that VP’s like Bush sr, Cheney, and Gore were “insignificant” needs to pay a little closer attention. Gore gained name recognition, and it won him the popular vote. Bush Sr and Cheney both effectively run/ran the executive branch for their puppet president.

    Comment by Iconoclast421 — October 18, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
  22. I really can’t see any of the other GOP candidates putting their life on the line like this. One usually chooses a VP who would be considered *worse* by the crazies (i.e. Dan Quayle, Dick Cheney, Etc.)

    That is why Walter Williams or Michael Badnarik would make such a great veep. Anyone who’d hate Ron Paul would hate both of these guys twice as much.

    I mean, would you bet your life that in all of Ron Paul’s supporters there isn’t someone willing to pick up a rifle and promote Ron Paul to POTUS the hard way? I wouldn’t.

    Even if they knew for certain they would be caught, tried and executed, I think there is at least one who would consider that a price well worth paying.

    Later.

    Comment by Kevin Houston — October 18, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
  23. wow that was like textbook provacateurship… creep-o-rama!

    Comment by oilnwater — October 18, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
  24. Not sure what you mean by that.

    I am not trying to be a provacatuer. Just stating what I think is a point being overlooked in the discussion.

    Comment by Kevin Houston — October 18, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
  25. Your logic is sound, Keving, but…. I hope that isn’t your real name. :)

    Comment by Jeff Molby — October 18, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
  26. Why even talk about him being the VP when he still has a great chance to win the nomination?

    Comment by Thomas — October 18, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
  27. Yeah that’s my real name, and I am perectly willing to tell you where I live too (Bridgewater, SD – pop. 600) I’ve nothing to be concerned about.

    I did not say, and am not now saying, that I would ever do such a thing. I have signed the Libertarian oath, and I intend to keep it faithfully. That means no violence to further political aims.

    All I’m saying is that Ron Paul supporters are such a diverse group; many are not Libertarians and they’re so numerous (50,000+ in meetups alone) that there must be at least one, statistically speaking, who would use violence if it suited their purpose.

    The calculus of such conditions is that you should choose a Veep who is just like you, only more extreme, or otherwise so obviously unsuited to the job of POTUS as to forstall any thinking in that direction.

    Not just assassination, but also impeachment: One of the things that made Clinton’s impeachment practical for the Republicans, was that Al Gore was not an unthinkable POTUS. In the same way, even the most die-hard liberal cannot give serious credence to the thought of impeaching Bush, because that will just hand the power directly to Cheney. Most of that crowd consider Cheney to be 1000 times worse than Bush in every aspect.

    Later.

    Comment by Kevin Houston — October 18, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
  28. I really doubt Ron Paul has any chance at a VP slot, but it would make a lot of sense — the campaign picking him up would gain votes, money, and volunteers, and better yet (from their perspective), keep him out of the race as a third party option.

    What does the VP do? Cast tie-breaking votes in the Senate — that would be huge, if Republicans get the Senate back to even, which is also very doubtful.

    I think Paul’s chances of winning the presidential nomination are greater than his being named a VP candidate, though. Low-turnout early states like Iowa, Nevada, and Wyoming will play to his strengths, as will libertarian-leaning New Hampshire, and Michigan’s disgruntled Democrats. Ron Paul’s two highest per-capita donor states are New Hampshire and Nevada.

    The handwriting is on the wall, most people just aren’t reading it yet.

    Comment by Craig — October 18, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
  29. Very poor insight in the article. We want Paul for President, not a second-place figurehead. I doubt very much that Dr. Paul would agree to lend his name to the campaign of any of those other lackeys. If you haven’t figured out that this is about fighting for principles, not winning some stupid sports event, then you’re not getting it at all. THERE IS NO SECOND PLACE.

    Besides, Dr. Paul’s bandwagon is rolling. He’s going to win. Step outside and see if you can tell which way the wind is blowing.

    Comment by David — October 18, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
  30. Doug,

    What a ridicules post. I suppose you are not aware that Paul is raising to win?

    A vice president run isn’t an option. Allow us to return to Reagan’s run for the Whitehouse. His campaign in the early months wasn’t so successful and nor was it popular in the south but a thriving success in the west…. If you look at the numbers Ron Paul’s Champaign is starting to mimic much of the pathway towards Regans nomination. In the end they pretty much told him that he would have to run with G W Bush (A CFR member). If you doubt the point just return to history and in his own words he was told who his VP would become.

    Do you think Paul will be safe in office? It’s sad to say but I doubt he will feel safe at all. Instead he will issue a rash of legislation to repeal and act with certain laws within the first 60 days. JFK planned to eliminate the Federal Reserve and Regan had planned to eliminate the IRS and Paul plans to eliminate both of them so how long do you think he will last in office? You only have to note they tried to kill Reagan and did kill JFK and it was done by members in our own government.

    Just go listen to E Howard Hunt regarding JFK and the attempt on Reagan’s life was carried out by a friend of the Bush family. Bush was also in the CIA at the time of the JFK shooting and he told the world he could not remember where he was at the time of JFK’s shooting. Do you remember where you were the day of 9-11 or the JFK shootings? I think everyone does!

    I was at a NH rally for Paul with over 800 people just a few weeks ago. The prior week Mitt had a rally that only had 250-300 people (I was at that one as well). Ron Paul isn’t running to be a VP but as the President.

    Consider this possibility: If the king makers will not allow Paul to take the office without a CFR member they will find a way to eliminate his efforts. I could see a Paul / Fred (CFR) VP ticket. But the greatest threat right now to Ron Paul is the fact that the Christian Base is planing another meeting this weekend to consider a 3rd party bid for office. Don’t get me wrong CBN has started to cover Ron Paul so has Chuck Baldwin and a few others. Ron Paul has so many Christian’s supporting him and we have to make it know to the Dobson’s and many others. As a Christian I understand the value of Christian leaders supporting Dr. Paul but we need to see this happen very soon or else the best candidate opportunity to win will become harder.

    Anyway, I’m not happy with Doug’s post at all. I think Doug’s post are a waste of time for Ron Paul’s supporters.

    Folks Doug says he supports Ron Paul but I didn’t see his name on the list of supporters for Ron Paul’s campaign did you? If I overlooked his name then forgive my doubt but I didn’t see it. Go check yourself.

    Comment by Darel99 — October 18, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
  31. I could see Ron Paul as a VP. For himself!! Paul/Paul 08′!!

    Comment by Seth — October 18, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
  32. “A couple hundred thousand extra supporters…” What a joke of an article. There are MILLIONS of Ron Paul supporters–the only thing this guy is right about is that neither RP nor anyone who supports him would ever join or support a fascist/racist/statist Rudy ticket.

    Comment by pacer — October 18, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
  33. Darel99,

    I have read some of your comments on digg and could only find a contact for you here. I would like to pick your brain regarding comments about Ron Paul and Alan Keyes. Kudos.

    Comment by Jonathon — October 18, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
  34. Do you think Paul will be safe in office? It’s sad to say but I doubt he will feel safe at all. Instead he will issue a rash of legislation to repeal and act with certain laws within the first 60 days. JFK planned to eliminate the Federal Reserve and Regan had planned to eliminate the IRS and Paul plans to eliminate both of them so how long do you think he will last in office? You only have to note they tried to kill Reagan and did kill JFK and it was done by members in our own government.

    Darel, you’ve got to be kidding me.

    This is the kind of paranoia that I never quite understood and I hope I never do, but then I don’t hang out with the tinfoil hat crowd.

    Don’t complain about my post, I was just commenting on something someone else wrote.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 18, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
  35. Vice-President Rudy Giuliani?
    Vice-President Mitt Romney?
    Vice-President Fred Thompson?
    Vice-President John McCain?
    Vice-President Mike Huckabee?

    Comment by brody — October 18, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
  36. IMHO – Based on combining the “data” of gallup polls, straw polls and internet polls, the ticket below would SLAUGHTER any Democratic ticket in 2008 as these candidates are the most popular in more samplings than any others:

    PR: Ron PaulVP: Mike Huckabee

    Ron Paul as Vice President wouldn’t add any votes to another candidate from people like ME because I wouldn’t vote for anyone other than Ron Paul for president. Maybe Rudy would another vote or two with Ron Paul as Vice President but not my vote.

    Comment by William — October 18, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
  37. I don’t believe Ron Paul would accept VP from any of the candidates. He has too much integrity for that.
    Why would he refuse to endorse any of the candidates and then decide to partner up with them?

    Comment by Susanne — October 18, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
  38. Someone mentioned a Ron Paul/Kucinich ticket. Have you ever heard Kucinich tick off the number of giveaways he would like to give at your expense. Kucinich is anti-liberty and pro-theft.

    Comment by Langston — October 18, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
  39. Susanne,

    I don’t think he’ll partner up either, but only because I doubt any of them are ideologically close enough to him and because I doubt that an offer would even be made. But there’s nothing morally or ethically wrong with taking the VP slot if you think you can do some good with it.

    Comment by UCrawford — October 18, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
  40. It is hard to imagine that someone with foreign policy views so diametrically opposed to the rest of the candidates would be chosen as VP, or would be willing to run if drafted.

    I see the value to the average Joe of Ron Paul having a pulpit to bring the message of liberty, but who among the CFR bunch would want such a liberty message to threaten the continuation of their control and plunder? What candidate other than Ron Paul is not just a puppet of the power establishment? No wonder they hate him.

    All these discussions are probably academic anyway, as the problems we face with oil depletion are large enough to make the next President a hated one term wonder, and probably large enough to bring an end to the federal government within the ensuing two Presidential election cycles.

    Comment by Sid Davis — October 18, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
  41. I’ve already decided that I will only vote for Ron Paul as president (write in if necessary), not VP. As VP he can’t do anything.

    If Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination, the republican party won’t get my vote as they have my entire voting life.

    I’ld prefer almost anyone over Hilary, but I won’t give in and give my vote to Statists anymore.

    The lesser of two evils is still evil.

    Comment by Chad — October 18, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
  42. Only PRESIDENT Ron Paul gets my vote.

    If he takes a VP slot from one of these other war-hawk spend and tax freaks, I’ll be refraining or voting 3rd party.

    Either Ron Paul as a Republican gets my vote, or Ron Paul as a 3rd party gets it. The rest have lost their opportunities at redemption.

    Comment by Brad Linzy, Evansville, IN — October 18, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
  43. I cannot figure out why some people keep thinking a Paul/Kucinich ticket would ever materialize. Economically speaking, Kucinich is about as far from Dr. Paul on the serious issues as one can be. Kucinich may be a civil libertarian, but he’s an economic authoritarian. Kucinich is a tax-and-spender, no doubt about it. Paul doesn’t jive with that.

    Comment by Brian T. Traylor — October 18, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
  44. Brian,

    There’s also the fact that Kucinich is:

    1. A socialist

    and

    2. Nuts

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 18, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
  45. Yeah, but his wife is really haaaaawt, Doug. That’s good enough for me. :-)

    Now that I think about it, I want a Thompson/Kucinich ticket!

    Comment by Jeff Molby — October 18, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
  46. Paul is
    - winning straw polls across the country
    - pulling in 110%+ fundraising gains in quarters where EVERY other candidate takes losses
    - can raise a million dollars in a week on the internet by just issuing a challenge for HALF that
    - has inspired so much enthusiasm that the VAST majority of his “campaign work” is being done for free spontaneously by self-motivated young people, former Republicans, crossover Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, Green Party members, and even people who despise the whole political process.

    Chalking a candidate’s campaign up to a “bid for VP” or a “third-party run,” as pundits and others have been doing with a puzzling frequency (given the fact that Paul himself has REPEATEDLY said he has no intention of either), is another way to dismiss them as another “cant possibly win.”

    They were wrong back in June when they all said he “wasnt going anywhere,” they were PROVEN wrong when he fundraised his way into the top tier, and theyre wrong now.

    It really would be better (and far less silly on its face) if people would just simply start waking up to the increasingly obvious fact that Ron Paul is a serious candidate with serious support.

    Comment by J707 — October 18, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
  47. Jeff,

    If you’re saying that Elizabeth Kucinich should get the VP slot, I’m all in favor. Our first smoking hot vice-president, with a tongue-stud no less. :)

    Comment by UCrawford — October 18, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
  48. And a photo link for those who don’t know who she is :)

    http://www.offrampbums.com/kucinich.jpg

    Comment by UCrawford — October 18, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
  49. I didn’t know about the stud. Very nice.

    I have to take great care not to mention her around my little brother. He’s onboard with Paul, but he goes ga-ga over redheads. We’d probably lose his support. :)

    Comment by Jeff Molby — October 18, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
  50. Nov.5th will be Ron Paul’s biggest day.
    http://www.thisnovember5th.com

    Comment by Chris — October 18, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
  51. I don’t think anyone would put Paul on as V.P. here’s why. Maybe some over enthusiastic supporter tries to take out the commander in chief just to get Paul as President. It’s a possibility.

    Comment by Michael Bass — October 19, 2007 @ 1:15 am
  52. Jeff,

    Yeah, but his wife is really haaaaawt, Doug. That’s good enough for me. :-)

    Now that I think about it, I want a Thompson/Kucinich ticket!

    As long as we’re talking Jeri Thompson and Elizabeth Kucinich, then we agree ;)

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 19, 2007 @ 5:17 am
  53. Michael,

    I don’t think anyone would put Paul on as V.P. here’s why. Maybe some over enthusiastic supporter tries to take out the commander in chief just to get Paul as President. It’s a possibility.

    I’ll say the same thing to you that I’ve said to others who’ve said stuff like this before….

    You’re joking, right ?

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — October 19, 2007 @ 5:18 am
  54. As I recall, Kennedy’s decision to add LBJ to the ticket did not, ultimately, turn out very well.
    No one is going to ask Ron Paul to be his running mate.

    Comment by W Gary Johnson — October 19, 2007 @ 7:42 am
  55. Doug,

    Yes, I meant Jeri Thompson. Yup, just two hot women holding down the highest office in the land. The only thing that would make that better is if they got smart and dumped their husbands from the picture so they explore their bi-curious urges. Mmmm…White House porn, only without Monica Lewinsky screwing up the image. We’d quickly become the envy of every nation on Earth.

    Sadly, Elizabeth Kucinich is actually a Brit, so it’s a no-go, thus I’m still voting for Ron Paul :)

    Comment by UCrawford — October 19, 2007 @ 8:41 am
  56. Make sure ya hide the cigars

    Comment by Jeff Molby — October 19, 2007 @ 10:14 am
  57. None of the other candidates have any right to be find their anywhere near Ron Paul. Ron Paul’s prophetic warning of the coming war against Iraq in 1997:

    Ron Paul prophesied the Iraq war was coming in 1997
    Posted on October 21, 2007 by Lance

    Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace
    US foreign policy is senseless, derived from propaganda and ignores fact
    By US Representative Ron Paul

    In recent weeks we have seen politicians and media personalities begin to beat the drums of war. While the overthrow of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein would undoubtedly be a positive event for that nation and the world, those who have fervently called for American involvement and intervention have misunderstood the problems and ignored the costs.Most fundamentally, U.S. foreign policy toward Iraq is flawed; it totally ignores history, and reflects a lack of understanding of long-time justifiable Arab distrust of the West. The Middle East has been savaged and ruled by outsiders for a thousand years, and U.N. quick-fixes will only aggravate the understandable resentment of those seen as foreign infidels by the Arabs.

    Regardless of how we may judge the merits of each war or occupation over the past 1000 years, the Arab mind is deeply influenced by the history of Roman, European, and now American meddling. Even the current borders between Middle Eastern countries have been imposed and enforced by outsiders without regard to the history of the region. This is not to argue who is right or who is wrong in each dispute but to emphasize the long-standing nature of the conflicts in the region that prevents a solution coming from the West. Arabs see U.N. policy as U.S. policy, and believe it to be anti-Arab, something that U.S. bombs only re-enforce.

    There is no direct national security interests for us to be in Iraq. We are not the policeman of the world, we can’t afford it, and our interventionist efforts usually backfire. Our policy in this region has been designed more to promote the United Nations than to deal with any threat to our national security. Control of the region’s huge oil reserves is a much more important factor than U.S. security.

    The cost of such an involvement is very high, and dependent on the immoral use of force. It is argued that the Persian Gulf War was a “cheap” war because less than 200 American military personnel lost their lives. But I argue that even if only one life is needlessly lost, the cost is too high. The billions of dollars spent obviously is a major cost to the American taxpayer. And with an estimated 35,000 military personnel suffering from the Gulf War Syndrome, a final price has yet to be determined. And horribly, the “price” innocent Iraqi civilians pay is seemingly of no concern to our policy makers.

    During the 60-day Persian Gulf War, more bombs were dropped on Iraq than all the bombs dropped on Germany in World War II. Yet instability remains and hatred of America increases. Many years of experience should demonstrate that further hostilities toward Iraq benefits Hussein as his people rally more strongly around him with each increase in sanctions.

    Current American policy has fractured the weak alliance that was bought in the Persian Gulf War: Russia, France, China, Egypt and others have urged that no military force be used at all.

    According to a recent Associated Press news story, Kuwait’s leaders and citizens are opposed to US interference with Iraq; remember, this is the same nation we went to war for after Iraq invaded them six years ago. If the people most vulnerable to Iraqi aggression are not anxious to see military might used against Hussein, they are sending a strong message to us about the wisdom of using force at this time.

    A popular conservative talk show host has suggested that the solution to the dilemma might be an alliance with Iran, for the purpose of destroying Iraq. This reflects the senselessness of foreign policy in the region. In the early 1980’s, when Iraq was using poison gases against Iran, we were Iraq’s allies. In essence, we subsidized the very weapons we now want to kill Hussein for possessing.

    Our foreign policy is without sense or reason. We subsidize China to the tune of many billions of dollars, although their record on human rights is every bit as bad as Iraq. Not only that, but China probably represents the greatest threat to world peace of all the countries in the world. Further, we are currently bailing-out Indonesia, although it too, violates the civil liberties of their own people. The U.S. criticizes Iraq for the treatment of the Kurds; yet Turkey’s policy is the same and we reward them with more American dollars. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have hardly been champions of civil liberties for minority religious groups or women, and yet we sacrificed American lives for them. The determining factor in all this seems to be who’s controlling the oil. Human rights issues and provoked threats from Hussein seem to be nothing more than propaganda tools for the politicians.

    The main goal of American policy appears to be to kill Hussein. If there was a clear understanding of this region, one would realize that this would probably lead to more chaos, more hatred toward America, and most likely cause a greater threat of terrorism here in the United States.

    Policy toward Iraq is based on the special interests of powerful financial and oil interests. It is not designed to protect U.S. national security. It is instead a threat to our security because it may lead to war and loss of American lives, increase terrorism and certainly an additional expense for the US taxpayer. The hyped rhetoric coming from Washington which describes Hussein as the only evil monster with which we must deal in the world is a poor substitute for wise counsel.

    A policy designed to protect American security and promote neutrality and friendship with all nations would go a long way toward removing the serious threat to peace in the Middle East.

    Comment by Mike — October 21, 2007 @ 10:44 am

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML