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]

Dude, can I like be um like Sec. of the exterior...

[End Times Crusader]

Re-read the thread for a minute and just shake your head in astonishment at all the knee-jerk responses.

knee-jerk response = any response which E3 disagrees with

I'd never thought I'd see the day when a pro-Constitution presidential candidate gets trashed, ironically on the very website that supports the Constitution.

The Constitution is a guideline not a suicide pact. Besides where does the Constitution mention shrimp?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

knee-jerk response = any response which E3 disagrees with

Name-calling, posting pics of terrorists supporting Paul, and ad-hominems doesn't qualify as debate

The Constitution is a guideline not a suicide pact. Besides where does the Constitution mention shrimp?

Still promoting this canard, eh? Nevermind the fact that it's been answered and explained to you and the Paul bashers a 100 million times.

[REDWOOD99]

Please, we’ve asked you a million times not to exaggerate.

[End Times Crusader]

LOL, yeah right. John McCain has more support than your boy RuPaul who can’t even break out of the low single digits percentage wise.

[ejonesie22]

Name-calling, posting pics of terrorists supporting Paul, and ad-hominems doesn't qualify as debate

That comes after the 100 million times you Paulettes repeat the same drivel even after it has been disproven, disavowed or disputed...

Someone has to break the monotony...

[dcwusmc]

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

[End Times Crusader]

Still promoting this canard, eh? Nevermind the fact that it's been answered and explained to you and the Paul bashers a 100 million times.

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.

[Brandie]

ROTFLMAO

Say what? Ron Paul? No thank you!

[dcwusmc]

The Constitution is a guideline not a suicide pact.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NOT a suggestion or guideline. It is a strict limit on the authority granted to the government, particularly FedGov. That you would call it a "guideline" does NOT speak well of you OR your understanding of the Constitutional Republic we were handed by the Founders. Your credibility as a critic of Dr. Paul just went right down the shiiter. Too bad, so sad.

[End Times Crusader]

Yeah, they’ve really tried to take over the site.

All 12 of them. They certainly are a persistent bunch of nutters, I'll give em that.

[ejonesie22]

So what mechanism do you suggest that a President have at his disposal to detect terror cells in the US. I am not talking armed conflict or the like, however I am interested in that answer as well.

I am talking about apprehending suspects in a day and age of instant communication and weapons that can kill thousands in a few seconds.

What provisions does our Constitution offer for this modern foe...

[End Times Crusader]

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, NOT a suggestion or guideline. It is a strict limit on the authority granted to the government, particularly FedGov. That you would call it a "guideline" does NOT speak well of you OR your understanding of the Constitutional Republic we were handed by the Founders. Your credibility as a critic of Dr. Paul just went right down the shiiter. Too bad, so sad.

That's the same type of argument that kept slavery legal in this country for nearly a hundred years.

[ejonesie22]

Actually your understanding of our history shows that trademark “Stuck in 8th Grade Civics” approach I have observed that most Paul supporters seem to have. Even the Founders knew the early weakness of their creation. They even worked around it at time in the early years of the Republic.

They relied on the reason and abilities of the future leaders to do the right thing with the Constitution in one hand and common sense in the other.

How many things have been “unconstitutional” over the years that in the end have been of great benefit to the majority of the population? How many have not? How many have been changed? How many amendments have been added as products of their time?

Those Great men were just that, men, they knew they would be followed by the same. They could never foresee the world we have now, and could never have prepared us for it.

[SoldierDad]

IMHO, all excellent points and well put.

[dcwusmc]

There are lots of mechanisms in place to deal with virtually any situation that can come up. FISA is one, which has real judges in a real courtroom, that can issue actual WARRANTS to do what may be needed. Doing something without a warrant, like wiretapping or no-notice searches, is a flagrant violation of the whole constitution. Especially read the fourth, fifth and tenth amendments. Also, CLOSING OUR BORDERS would go a long way to minimizing the threat... something no Rat and only two or three Pubbies want to do... most egregious is Bush, which is a major reason I’ll be glad to see him GONE.

[dcwusmc]

Slavery was the “Great Compromise” that never should have been. Ever. It was almost the demise of this nation in its infancy. But you still think of the Constitution as only a guideline? Then bring lots of cash plus the deed to your house and car and everything you own and come on over to my place. We’ll play some poker and I’ll treat the rules of the game as the same “guideline” as you seem to think the Constitution is... and maybe loan you carfare to go to the nearest homeless shelter when we’re done. Fair enough?

[dcwusmc]

No one, least of all me, claims that the Constitution is perfect. It grants fedgov way too much discretionary authority for my taste, and does not put in serious penalties to gov’t officials who knowingly and willingly wipe their butts with it. Or useful idiots who encourage them to do so, then try to demonize those who call them on their idiocy.

[End Times Crusader]

Would you have been for the abolition of slavery by the federal government without a Constitutional amendment?

[ejonesie22]

As true as that maybe, and I have read the Constitution more than once, under the current threat, sometimes the bureaucratic process is a tick to sluggish. There was some leeway built into the Constitution for a reason. This is an exceptional case. The domestic spying is quite targeted to begin with, and there are precious resources for casually observing the regular citizen. Could there be abuses, sure, but there could be if it was done by “the book” as well.

We weighed the factors and make the choices. The small risk is offset by the huge gains.

If we failed to protect another 2000 lives or more, the platitude “But it was Constitutional” will be of little solace to the dead or their families.