Posted on 08/16/2007 5:33:32 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
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.
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.
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.
In other words, we should put Ron Paul in the VP slot because he'll appeal to the dumbest segment of voters in the entire electorate.
Actually, wouldn't putting Paul as the VP make him not a third party candidate but part of a major party ticket, therefore, the appeal to these voters is a moot point?
Boomers are always the pig in the python demographically and we do vote in very high percentages. We are now (having been born between 1946 and 1964) ranging in age from 43 to 61. Until Slick Willie ran in 1992 and 1996 and thereafter, we have always cast a majority of our votes for the GOP, MSM propaganda notwithstanding.
Let us suppose that an expanse of 11 years, 18-29, might even be a slice equaling 17% of the electorate. If so, you could extrapolate to 17% for each age group (ignoring the boomers' still vibrant numerical advantage). Then 30-41, 42-53, 54-65, 66-77 would be four other age groups with 17% each (not really but this would be the theory). That would make 5 age groupings times 17% or 85% of the electorate. Does this mean that those 78 and older make up the remaining 15%??? Not very likely.
Isn't a third party preference also a demographic??? How can the 18-29s be both Democrat and 2-1 for third party candidates???? Furthermore, the history of most age groups is that they move sharply rightward as they marry and have kids. That does not mean paleocheapskatism posing as conservatism or paleopantywaistism posing as conservative foreign policy in spite of Pearl Harbor and 9/11. It means SOCIAL ISSUE conservatism.
What is a conservative??? A liberal with a daughter in junior high school. A liberal who has been mugged. A liberal whose son Jeffrey has "married" Bruce or Lance. Each such group has and will join those who had the common sense to be social conservatives in the first place and to be supportive of our military at war whether paleopipsqueaks like it or not.
We are not selling our party birthright on social and military issues to recruit airheads who don't know any better. There are plenty of young people who believe in our principles. THEY are the ones we want along with every other voter who shares our principles. We shall not betray them by conniving to use paleoPaulie to attract the votes of their generational enemies and our nation's enemies. It makes no more sense to appeal to antiwar jerks than it does to appeal to abortion enthusiasts, homosexual "rights" enthusiasts or other libertoonians. Many more votes are available by keeping the base intact (crushing paleoPaulie memorably) and reaching out to social conservatives among Democrat and unaffliated voters who are not going to ever be represented by the Demonratic party's elitist leftist and reflexively pro-criminal, antiAmerican, antimilitary, antibaby, antimarriage and antigun leadership.
If we need more social conservatives and military conservatives and gun conservatives to win, we should begin to recruit, educate and get them committed to our cause. To the extent that money issues or "smaller government" issues (quite often in league with the AntiChristian Criminal Liberties Union) can help, tolerate them within limits and even pursue lower taxes with a vengeance after the big issues are resolved, but they are not priorities to approach the significance of guns, babies, marriage, military, crime.
2. Not to worry. You won't see Giuliani or McCain or probably even Romney on the ticket. That will be because actual conservatives and actual Republicans will see to it that they are defeated. PaleoPaulie will also be defeated but in a more nuclear fashion since his heresies on foreign policy and outright refusal to DO anything other than run his mouth on abortion while being notably silent on "gay" "marriage" while supporting blatantly unconstitutional earmarks while opposing them simultaneously, and holding many other heresies demand that actual conservatives destroy him politically.
Run your feeble warwimp as a third party candidate and he will drain some net antiAmerican vote from Hillary or whomever. The Republican Party is neither an antiAmerican antiwar party nor is it some twelfth rate libertoonian institution. The paleopipsqueak is simply not ready for prime time.
New Alert Level for the Paulistas.
^5
Did you see post #4? :)
Yes....that is hilarious....and so true. LOL
I would prefer him to be third in line for the presidency rather than second.
Can’t disagree with any of your twelve.
ROFLOL!!!!
i can not support the destruction of our Constitutional rights - do you fully expect the govt to repeal it if we even find ourselves with out a muslim threat (yes I know - Im giddy with the thought too) - But I see current legal tools as satisfactory....for heavens sake theres a friggin gps in your cell phone - do you thinks theres one in osamas ?
You have yet to name specifically what constitutional rights have been lost due to the Patriot Act. Your empty rhetoric proves nothing.
do you fully expect the govt to repeal it if we even find ourselves with out a muslim threat (yes I know - Im giddy with the thought too) -
The Patriot Act comes up periodically for authorization by Congress. I hope portions of it are retained permanently so we have the same tools to combat terrorism and espionage that we have to combat drug dealers.
But I see current legal tools as satisfactory....for heavens sake theres a friggin gps in your cell phone - do you thinks theres one in osamas ?
Since the inception of the Patriot Act the tools have been satisfactory. Law enforcement and intelligence officials played a major role in drafting the Patriot Act based on the lessons learned from 9/11. For example, the "Gorelick wall" prevented the intelligence arm in DOJ from sharing information with the criminal justice arm and with the CIA.
You and Ron Paul are in a state of denial about the threat of militant Islamic fundamentalism, which is a global movement. AQ has been attacking the US for almost 15 years around the globe with 9/11 being the culmination of their efforts, which have not ended. Ron Paul is a dangerous fool.
He he. Have you see pictures of Sealand?
If we had a congressionally approved war, perhaps we'd have the ability to do just that - but -we fight it in dribs and drabs - chewing up our blessed military families in the process.
If that categorizes or satisfies your need to to call me a kook, so be it.
It just disgusts me that people are so quick to sacrifice on American soil - when clearly the battle begins at our borders on immigration (dont want to go there Im sure) and foreign soil -
To answer your question the Patriot act allows for a "Administrative supeona" and is a clear violation of the 4th amendment.
Oh - you might want to look in to the "Real ID Act" as well.....the first line of which the DHS states its used to fight "fraud" now is that fraud against terrorists only - or did we just surrender rights so they could combat fraud in general ?
see you in 1984....likely as the boots are pressed against our necks
awaiting your comments to my previous post
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.