I understand tending to look at the bright side of things and making it a point to mention positive aspects of things that seem overall negative. I even understand reporting favorable news and not focusing much on negative news.
But what the hell is this?
[...] Let's hope though that more than party platform influence is what Dr. Paul gains from his run. In addition to delegates in a brokered convention, he has a strong following of roughly 10% of voters. This will be very valuable in the general election, if Dr Paul holds his nose and strongly endorses , say, Mitt Romney. That's worth real influence in a Republican administration, not platform platitudes that are noticed by few and eventually forgotten by all.
WTF? So before, it was "Romney's a big government warmongering statist who just happens to be a bit more friendly and respectful toward Paul...but he's just as bad (if not worse) than all those other guys."
Now Ron Paul is reduced to "holding his nose" and actually endorsing someone like that simply because it would (allegedly) be worth "real influence" in the latest criminal administration? And this is different from Santorum's "politics is a team sport...sometimes you gotta take one for the team" nonsense, how?
I mean, when someone like Santorum goes against principle to attempt to further a (supposed) justified end, he's called out for the phony he is, but if Ron Paul were to do it, it would be a good move.
And now even Rockwell is flirting with making the case for defending a Ron Paul VP.
What the hell happened to "Ron's too principled" "Ron doesn't 'hold his nose' and just go with a establishment party choice" "Ron wouldn't sell out like that" ???
It wasn't a week ago Alex Jones and Rockwell himself agreed that this "Ron Paul/Mitt Romney working together" was an "establishment trick" and they asserted that Paul wouldn't go for such a thing...
Now all of a sudden Alex Jones thinks Paul's considering a VP slot and Wenzel and Rockwell fall-in with "oh VP doesn't have to be a weak position"...and "in the original constitution the vice president was the president's greatest political opponent."
Give me a f-ing break.
This is more than disappointing. This actually kind of pisses me off. This is no longer simple "being a good cheerleader"...this is borderline blind devotion. The liberty movement has a hard enough time as it is dealing with all the knee-jerk accusations of essential idol worship and "Ron Paul = messiah" mentality. Everyone who understands freedom is already labeled a "Paul worshiper" or "Paultard" or some other nonsense insult.
But at least it simply worked out that people agreed with everything Ron Paul said because he simply followed libertarian principle...meaning it wasn't that "whatever Ron Paul said is right because Ron Paul said it"...but rather it was right because it was in line with the principles we already agreed with...whether Paul did or not.
But with displays like those above, it points more toward the latter...that whatever Paul does, that's the right thing and we're going to defend it. Like he's the Pope or something. And that really does lean in a "messiah" direction...as in, whatever he decides, that's the right thing.
This notion that "A Ron Paul VP could be a great opposition to a statist warmongering establishment president"..."VP doesn't have to be a powerless post...think Dick Cheney!" is just nonsense.
Was Dick Cheney an anti-establishment guy? Did he really oppose anything Bush would have wanted? Wenzel tries to hold Cheney up as this great example of a strong VP, but he somehow forgets the fact that Cheney wasn't fighting anything. He was part of the establishment and just furthering their agenda. How the fact that Cheney appeared to have influence in a Bush administration supports the argument that Ron Paul would have influence in a Romney administration is just beyond me.
We're supposed to believe that a total establishment guy like Romney, complete with the backing of the establishment (of course including the entire GOP) is just going to be cut off at the knees because of one guy in what is virtually the most powerless position in the federal government (outside of a few rare circumstances)?
This sounds like nothing more than laying groundwork and smoothing out the path for justifying and rationalizing Ron Paul endorsing, or even joining campaigns with a "warmongering statist" (Rockwell's words...not mine) like Willard "Mitt" Romney. And it certainly doesn't help the case against Ron Paul supporters being anything but blind sheep, supporting anything he says or does.
I am 100% sure that Paul will be Romney's choice for VP. He's not in it to win it, folks. He's in it to protect his image.
As somebody who has liked Ron Paul since 2007, if he were to do something like this, I would feel stabbed in the back. I would try to figure out what his rationale is since I'm working with the presupposition that Ron Paul is intelligent and good-hearted, but if nothing seems to make sense, I'll have to revise that presupposition.
I don't think Paul would even want to be vice president; he would much prefer being a public commentator of some variety. Even with Rand Paul, I feel it would be awful if he took a VP slot since it reflects on the Paul candidacy. The last thing they need to do is get absorbed by the Republican establishment.
As for Rockwell, yeah, this is "rah-rah Ron Paul!" Anything Paul ever does will be spun in a positive light on LRC and EPJ.
Lew Rockwell has always been a whore.
I'd like to think that Ron Paul himself isn't nearly as interested in attaining power at any cost , which is what some of the comments indicate his followers are.
edit: On the other hand, isn't he basically just holding his nose by being part of Congress now? Sure we can look at his votes and say he didn't vote for such and such, but we can probably also assume that he didn't support whatever crap comes out of the Romney administration, too.
Politically, having Paul be part of any administration that runs serious risk of massively damaging the country is disastrous for the libertarian cause because 30 years from now people can just say "oh yeah, like that Ron Paul guy who caused a depression" or whatever. Anything bad will get pinned on "Ron Paul's laissez faire influence" or similar nonsense in exactly the same way people blame things on Reagan's rhetoric even though he followed through on basically none of it.
"Lew Rockwell has always been a whore."
You guys have lost all your logic. Where has Lew Rockwell ever supported the bad ideas from Romney?
Molineux must be feeling that warmest of feelings: the knowledge that he could have been right all along.
Well I suppose that Paul could agree to be VP and then resign if Romney doesn't change his tune on Iran, foreign policy in general, military spending, and use the bully pulpit to push for the elimination of at least several departments as well as perhaps some work towards ending the Fed. I see Romney as being so morally pliable that he would agree to those changes and Paul as being willing to resign and make a stink about it.
But frankly that would be a best case scenario from that situation, which frankly doesn't sound that realistic, and I would be disappointed if Paul accepted the position.
cporter:On the other hand, isn't he basically just holding his nose by being part of Congress now? Sure we can look at his votes and say he didn't vote for such and such, but we can probably also assume that he didn't support whatever crap comes out of the Romney administration, too.
No. Casting votes against unconstitutional bills is not the same thing as endorsing a warmongering statist for President. "Holding his nose" means doing something that is unpleasant or that you would rather not do, so that you might achieve some more desired end. (It comes from the concept of literally holding your nostrils together so that you cannot smell (and therefore cannot taste as much) the bad-tasting medicine you need to swallow.)
I would pretty much guarantee Ron Paul quite happily votes against all that government growth and introduces all those government-shrinking bills...not to mention being able to make the speeches he does on the Floor. I would even venture to say he might even enjoy it (even if it does get tiring sometimes).
Yes I went into this notion here...
Why Obama Might Actually Be the Second Best Choice
I'm mixed about Dr. Paul being the VP. On one hand he could have some influence AND it would show that a libertarian candidate has a chance to take a large position of power. On the other hand we know Obamney is 100% corporatist and would prevent Dr. Paul from ending the FED and all the other things Dr. Paul promises to do.
Maybe things won't be as bad with Dr. Paul as VP then theyd be w/ Newt or Santorum as VP.
I think I agree with you John, but let's say this scenario plays out and a Romney/Paul ticket is elected. Could Paul not use his position as a bully pulpit? I'm guessing his statements and press conferences would be marginalized or ignored by the media, but could he revive the old tradition of actually presiding over the Senate rather than just showing up for tie breakers? What is the process for removal of a vice president, i.e. could Romney just have him removed after being elected?
Going by delegates, Romney would be crazy not to choose Santorum, if Santorum will accept the role.
Still, VPs aren't always chosen from the field of candidates. Imagine if he chose someone like Chris Christie, or Palin.
Eh, there's no really inspiring choices out there for a libertarian except for perhaps Paul. But it would be a consolation prize at best.
If Romney wins the nomination I could see him going for a guy like Jim DeMint. I mean DeMint gave Paul lip service, but didn't endorse him so maybe Romney will tap him as his VP slot in hopes of getting at least a portion of Paul's supporters onboard.
John James:No. Casting votes against unconstitutional bills is not the same thing as endorsing a warmongering statist for President. "Holding his nose" means doing something that is unpleasant or that you would rather not do, so that you might achieve some more desired end. (It comes from the concept of literally holding your nostrils together so that you cannot smell (and therefore cannot taste as much) the bad-tasting medicine you need to swallow.) I would pretty much guarantee Ron Paul quite happily votes against all that government growth and introduces all those government-shrinking bills...not to mention being able to make the speeches he does on the Floor. I would even venture to say he might even enjoy it (even if it does get tiring sometimes).
I agree, there is a difference. It's one thing to be VP (or be in Congress) and another thing to endorse the President to get there (endorsing the actions of Congress to become a Congressman). He would have to do the former, but didn't have to do the latter. I wouldn't mind Ron Paul as a VP if he could somehow get the job without endorsing Romney at all. Too bad that's impossible.
JJ, I think the chaos and uncertainty surrounding the convention and nomination is making driving people to think irrational things.
Paul will NOT be Romney's VP choice...
Frankly, Romney's camp probably wants Paul supporters to think these things because indirectly they are considering voting for him.
Either, Paul drops out before the nomination to AVOID having to endorse a candidate AND defend his honor OR he goes to the convention, is given a speaking slot and rambles on about how the people are voting for absurdity and completey destroys his GOP reputation and kills Rand's possible political future and hands the election to Obama.
I HOPE that Paul causes chaos at the GOP convention (because F*** the GOP, they deserve it), but you can guess what I THINK will happen.
EDIT: I cannot imagine Paul accepting a position of no power for four years. He would do nothing but miss his family as VP.
Romney will neither chose Paul, nor would Paul accept, even if he was offered. I think these things are pretty obvious, but what do I know?
Second thought.
Paul seems to have started saying, even at speeches, "If you have to have a war, at least declare it with the Congress," as an attempt to not paint himself into a corner with the voting righteous ones among us.
This will allow the U.S. government to really use force. Compared to that, the wars we see today will look like 'day care for terrorists'.
Paul, the anti-war, candidate might turn Iran into a much more swift and unilateral action. The international legal focus will go out the window if the Congress actually declares war...
Paul isn't going to cause chaos (as fun as that sounds). He is going to take the high road as he always does and he'll just make a grand speech on the cause of liberty that, hopefully, will be as compelling as Goldwater's famous speech. The GOP is running scared and knows that they can't win any elections in the near future without the support of Paulians and the only way they can get the support of Paulians is to actually behave like Ron Paul. I think this will cause them to treat him with kiddie gloves after he drops out (and by "drop out" I mean when all the primaries and caucuses are over, I realize Paul isn't dropping out mid-election).
Rockwell changing his tune back?...
And the CIA's Time is all for it. But the idea of Ron Paul, of all people, backing a vicious and warmongering Keynesian police-statist and drug prohibitionist like Romney, let alone bringing his movement to support the McCain of 2012, is just silly.
The father of Obamacare is a warmonger of the worst sort.
If Paul backs Romney, he gains influence and the ability to moderate Romney.
If he doesn't, Romney gets someone just like him and maintains an echo chamber.
If Paul can't gain the nomination, his best move is to push for VP. Since rejecting VP means a further defeat of Paul's ideals and the loss of a significant podium for spreading libertarian ideas. He could lose the battle and win the war.
You don't usually win wars by demanding all or nothing victories. You edge towards victory, scratching out partial victories if need be. Until the time when you've gained enough power to make big moves.
Should Paul really turn down the VP slot if he's offered it? Hell no. If that's the best he can get he should.
Anenome:rejecting VP means a further defeat of Paul's ideals
Um. What?
You don't usually win wars by demanding all or nothing victories. You edge towards victory, scratching out partial victories if need be.
You also don't win ideological wars by compromising the ideals you're promoting.
Sounds to me like you're saying "sometimes you gotta take one for the team"...that going against principle is worth it if you think it will further a supposed justified goal...
That the ends justify the means...no?
I doubt Romney will even approach Ron Paul for VP pick. Romney will probably want to placate the many members of the Republican base who are unhappy with him--choosing Ron Paul would not acheive that. Even if Romney did, I'm sure Ron Paul is smart enough to realize he would have better influence going on TV shows and making speeches rather than being VP. I think we're all worrying about nothing.
But the main issue is: Could Ron Paul be pardoned for accepting a VP slot? At worst, it's a stupid move on Ron Paul's part. I'm sure it wouldn't mean Paul would compromise on his principles. He would accept the position (wrongly) to advance the liberty movement. He wouldn't be a sell-out; he would simply be shortsighted. Again, I doubt we have to worry about this.
In a simpler way, it's all a bunch of nonsense, and depending of which stripe of libertarian or conservative you ask you'll get different answers. For those who won't compromise principles or ethics, because we know exactly how it works and what affect it will or will not have on anything for our own "agenda" we know the whole thing is useless, it's only reputation and image after that. Is Ron Paul principled with his own ethics he follows? History shows that, it shows that he would not take a VP position, that's consenting to the establishment.
The difference is the type of people who'd support this. Last campaign my brother was a die hard Paul supporter, but some poking around can show he's not a libertarian, just a fiscal conservative. Suggesting that maybe Paul should hold back or not discuss certain matters because the older crowd may not understand, such as the war on drugs, or maybe not be so direct or take a different approach on being anti-war, etc. To quote Rorshach from the Watchmen, "Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon." Thus, pick and choose what parts of Paul someone likes, edit what he has to say. Well, if that's the case than Paul is not the candidate for you, take it all in or leave it alone. People see Paul as this hard, stubborn, non-compromising libertarian, but some of the crowd may cave in, which they didn't really care - they aren't principled. (Someone like my brother was also quick to say "Paul/Cain 2012!" before Herman went to shit - something we all knew.)
I have my own bias against Paul, but when it comes to being president he's the only option, but that's the only decision, president or no? If it's anything else nevermind, I'm not going to half ass decentralizing things with a mock position of no power. Paul taking a VP slot is in a way the worst marketing possible.
Well just imagine if Paul did accept the nomination for VP. The first thing the media is asking him is how he can square his beliefs with Romney. Can you imagine Paul not calling Romney a warmonger in so many terms and not saying that he stands up for the economic status quo? If he flip flops, the media would be all over him. If he remains true to his beliefs and criticizes Romney as not being very different from Obama, how would that reflect on the Romney campaign and why would they want him in the first place? Your running mate doesn't even support you? In either scenario, wouldn't he get eaten alive at the VP debates?
So this isn't going to work out any which way you slice it. Rand is more likely, but the same issues will apply to a Rand Paul VP.
"In either scenario, wouldn't he get eaten alive at the VP debates?"
You realize he would be debating Biden? A box of rock stands a better chance debating Paul than Biden.
Eric080:Well just imagine if Paul did accept the nomination for VP. The first thing the media is asking him is how he can square his beliefs with Romney. Can you imagine Paul not calling Romney a warmonger in so many terms and not saying that he stands up for the economic status quo? If he flip flops, the media would be all over him.
...oh you mean like if he endorsed a warmongering statist...like, say, Mitt Romney?
More Rockwell sounding like normal Rockwell...
Normally, I'd believe nothing this State-worshipper says, but here I think he is telling the truth. Even if not, there is no way that Ron Paul is supporting this better-looking version of McCain. If Ron had been willing to trim just a bit as a congressman, he would have been chairman of the banking and then the financial services committee, a rich man, and a beloved figure to the MSM. But Ron Paul is not a trimmer, never has been, never will be. He sticks to his libertarian principles, even though they have blocked his advancement in the regime. But he has no power lust. That's why young people love him. That's why he's changing the future.
Well, you never actually accused him of changing his tune in the first place, did you? Your assertion was that he was "flirting with making the case for defending a Ron Paul VP". You didn't accuse him of defending a Ron Paul VP, or even of making the case for defending a Ron Paul VP. You accused him of flirting with making the case for defending a Ron Paul VP. You accuse him of considering the idea of making the case that a case can be made for a Ron Paul VP. It doesn't sound a lot hinges on the verdict, then.
Yeah I understand debating Biden would not be hard. But Paul couldn't satisfactorily respond to the media questioning him why he had a sudden change of heart which would certainly be something he is questioned on during the debate. That works for people like Biden who attacked Obama in the 2008 primaries on minutiae only to change his tune on certain issues, because they understand that that is politics and that he's being a team player. With Paul, he built his brand loyalty based on principle and that he is fundamentally at odds with the Republican party platform. It would be a huge chink in his armor; that's what I meant by the media eating him alive in a debate setting.