10 Reasons Why Ron Paul Should be Vice President

USA ELECTION POLLS.COM ^ | 16 AUGUST 2007 | AP

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

10 Reasons Why Ron Paul Should be Vice President

August 16, 2007

If Ron Paul fails to win the Republican nomination, it may seem absurd to consider Ron Paul as the vice presidential running mate to any of the other Republican presidential candidates. But before you think so, we have brainstormed this here at our office and found that Ron Paul would make the best choice for Vice President.

The major item of concern in choosing a vice presidential running mate is to select someone that can help you win and to find someone whose strength is your weakness. In 2004, John Kerry chose John Edwards to help him carry the south (that did not happen). In 2000, George W. Bush who lacked foreign policy experience chose Dick Cheney. In 1996, an old and tired Bob Dole chose former football player Jack Kemp.

There is very little evidence to suggest that a Vice President will help you win the nomination. Edwards did not help Kerry carry the south. Bush won by the slimmest of margins in Florida but that was not attributed to Dick Cheney, and Bob Dole still seemed old despite Jack Kemp being on his ticket.

The reality is that Ron Paul could change all of that if he was second in line to a Rudy Giuliani or a Mitt Romney, etc... And here is our reasons for saying so.

1. Ron Paul has the largest online army of every presidential candidate in either party and choosing him as your running mate would allow you to tap into that. Imagine all the free bloggers and YouTube videos posted for you.
2. Ron Paul has the largest grassroots organization through meetup of all the candidates and they will invariably support you for free as they are doing for Ron Paul right now.
3. Imagine all the money that can be saved from having a free online presence and an already established grassroots organization. Use that money to win the battleground states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
4. Ron Paul's antiwar message resonates with the majority of voters and has been able to attract Independents and Democrats into the party.
5. Ron Paul still has the visions of Ronald Reagan: small government, less taxes, etc... and falls in line with true conservatism.
6. Republican voters will not care that you selected Ron Paul as a running mate and not vote for you but you may sway other voters to come into the big tent.

7. By selecting Ron Paul as a vice presidential running mate, you will keep him from running as an Independent third party candidate that spoils a close race against the eventual Democratic nominee. There have been many instances of libertarians running for office and spoiling a win for the Republican party in an attempt to move the party platform.
8. Ron Paul can be no worse than Dick Cheney.
9. Disinterested voters for the cause of liberty who have been fed up with the process are choosing to support Ron Paul and will be excited with Ron Paul on your ticket. Nobody ever got excited about John Edwards, Dick Cheney, or Jack Kemp the way they would with Ron Paul.
10. Young voters, 18-29, make up approximately 17% of the voters in a presidential election. They tend to support the third party candidate at a rate of 2:1 and they favor the Democratic candidate over any other demographic. Look at Ralph Nader and John Kerry voters in 2004. Ron Paul will be able to cause a shift in the young voters. Causing a shift in young voters would have its greatest impact if voter turnout was increased which would be likely to happen.

So it is our contention that if Ron Paul does not win the presidential nomination, the eventual winner whether it is Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Fred Thompson, or Mitt Romney; they should select Ron Paul for the maximum likelihood of winning.

[ejonesie22]

There was a reason for all the discretionary authority. I will never say it has not been abused, and in the past 40 years there are times it has been beaten with in an inch of it’s life. The beauty of the document is also its fatal flaw. It trusts good men to do the right thing for the right reasons. If it is being abused whilst also being used correctly, it still stands...

[dcwusmc]

It would have been really easy to do... simply stop importation of slaves, start a campaign to marginalize slaveholders, just as we have done to smokers, then have fedgov buy the slaves up and manumit each one... no one’s property rights would have been violated in any way, even given (which I do NOT) that it was ever OK to HAVE property rights in another human being to begin with; and no war between the states would have been needful. Then pass an amendment specifically stating that never again would one person in this nation ever “own” another one.

[ejonesie22]

BTW I wasn’t trying to be snippy in my post but it came across that way, maybe a tick of reaction to your post above.

I respect your opinion and your service to our land. Again the beauty of the creation is we, in the end, fight for the same thing no matter our approach..

Well, except for most of the Democrats...

[highlander_UW]

Don’t forget the point that he’s as crazy as Howard Dean. However, I fail to see why we need a Howard Dean counterpart.

[hosepipe]

No republican can or will win in 2008..
For that reason Fred Thompson should run for Prez.. and Newt for VeeP.. If for no other reason than the debates.. and the dialog after the election.. After the democrats crash the economy by taxes and Universal Health Care 2012 will be an opportunity..

[chill93257]

Please.......... !! I now understand that Ron Paul has an amazing collection of zealots and nut-burgers... But his chances of becoming President or the VP choice is quantum leaps less than I have in winning the damn lottery.. He is an absolute idiot and a simian fool... I will work for Democrats if somehow he ends up on the Republican ticket.. Please, you damn fools, stop with the email, blogging, and internet blizzards you are attempting.. and accept the fact that your choice for office is simply a damn drooling monkey.

[kabar]

I believe in giving our government the tools it needs to defend us. Is that good enough for you? Are you in favor of repealing the Patriot Act like Ron Paul?

[kabar]

The Patriot act, so-called, is one of the most UnConstitutional pant-loads to come down the pike for a LONG time.

Who has ruled it unconstitutional? What specifically is unconstitutional about it?

And if it had been Billy Jeff or some other Rat that had proposed it, you would have been all over that person like stink on shiite. And you KNOW it. Is that the sort of power ANY president should have? Or have available to a HilLIARy? My answer is, “Hell NO.”

My answer is that we are at war and HELL YES, I believe in giving our government the tools it needs to carry out its constitutional duties to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Prior to the adoption of the Patriot Act, law enforcement officials had more tools to catch drug dealers than they had to apprehend terrorists.

So I applaud Dr. Paul for his opposition to that turkey of a law. If the President can’t fight terrorists without having to resort to these abominable tactics, then it’s high time we found one who CAN and WILL fight terrorists AND abide by the strictures of the Constitution.

Ron Paul is a dangerous fool. Thankfully, he is in a distinct minority that fails to recognize that we are at war. Let me know specifically what you believe is unconstitutional about the Patriot Act.

[Ditter]

OK then bub, your support for R. Paul makes you look stupid. He is a nice guy, good doctor but As a presidential candidate this man is less than nothing.

[lormand]

"I'd never thought I'd see the day when a pro-Constitution presidential candidate gets trashed,..."

Nice try at diversion, for the 1000th time, but again, for the 1000th time, we trash Ron Paul for his surrender monkeyness.

[mnehring]

I can add about a dozen more to that lists, but I’ve decided that I shouldn’t feed the paulites, it will only encourage them and add to their Google results. Everyone knows that only in Bizarro World would Paul ever make it to the inaugural podium unless he was picking up the trash afterward.

[mnehring]

"I'd never thought I'd see the day when a pro-Constitution presidential candidate gets trashed,..." Nice try at diversion, for the 1000th time, but again, for the 1000th time, we trash Ron Paul for his surrender monkeyness.

Actually, I 'trash' RonPaul both for his failure to take an adult approach to the WOT and that he is a fake Constitutionalist.. Just because you talk about something a lot, doesn't make you an official spokesperson for that. Fred Phelps talks about being a Christian, that doesn't make him one.

[soccermom]

He forgot the barf alert!

[mnehring]

Paul is actually more suited to be King of Sealand.

Considering all the things Paul claims he will do that is outside Presidential power, maybe King of some third world hell hole would suit him.

[WhiteGuy]

10 Reasons Why Ron Paul Should be Vice President

Good points. The republicans should pay attention.

It is doubtful that the gop candidate will attract enough “non-partisan” independents to win otherwise.

[mnehring]

eschelon isnt enough for you ?

Heck no, Eschelon is 15 years old, we need something far more powerful.

[mnehring]

I'm still waiting for you Paulestinians to point out the part of the Constitution that authorizes either earmarks or taxpayer support of the shrimping industry.

I'm still waiting to hear why Paul thinks the Patriot Act is a violation of civil liberties but a federally funded child tracking database isn't.

[Badeye]

‘I’m still waiting to hear why Paul thinks the Patriot Act is a violation of civil liberties but a federally funded child tracking database isn’t.’

Don’t hold your breath.

[trisham]

bump

[Oberon]

I’m afraid the author of this piece totally misunderstands the Ron Paul phenomenon. Paul appeals specifically because he ISN’T Giuliani or Mitt Romney or John McCain. Paul supporters for the most part won’t back those guys just because they’re on the same ticket.