VP Poll
Posted August 1st, 2007 by GoodSamaritan
output
Is it too early to start considering the best choice for VP? I realize that this decision is up to Dr. Paul, but I suspect that he and his campaign staff would appreciate some early input from the grassroots. After all, we are already hearing rumors of a Clinton-Obama ticket.
Hopefully someone reading this has the skill and the will to set up a poll that can filter duplicate IPs, and do whatever else is necessary to make it as accurate as possible. We should have as many reasonable choices as possible, and I would like to start with two suggestions that have already been floated elsewhere: John Stossel and Walter E. Williams - both libertarian.
We DO NOT want to make a Ross Perot - type blunder with a VP candidate like James Stockdale. I have nothing against Stockdale, a graduate of the Naval Academy, Viet Nam POW, and all-around distinguished American (now deceased). But the sad fact was that he had virtually no public name recognition and is only remembered from his campaign for asking the embarrassing questions, "Who am I? Why am I here?"
I think that we could safely count on both Stossel and Williams to obey the Constitution. They both have enormous name recognition - Stossel from years on TV and Williams from many years as a columnist and co-host for Rush Limbaugh. Milton Friedman once praised Stossel for his understanding of economics. Williams is a professor of economics and has endorsed Ron Paul for President.
So, is there anyone willing and able to set up such a poll?
If there is a poll, who else should be on it?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
What about George Carlin?
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas
"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."
Like-Minded Constitutionalists
I didn't see any naming of Paul Craig Roberts, For those who do not know him, here is a link to get you to his syndicated columns.
http://www.vdare.com/robe...
I also like Bob Barr and Andrew Napolitano, They would also be strong candidates for Attorney General or if the opportunity arises - Supreme Court Justice
Maybe the Doctor might consider a fellow Texan, Jon Roland of Constitution dotorg. Jon is an attorney
http://constitution.org/
How about the attorney from Shreveport who just won a not guilty unanimous decision from a jury against the DOJ and the IRS for evasion of tax and failure to file. His name is Tom Cryer.
His website is http://www.gcstation.net/...
And type LieFreeZone at youtube and watch his video about the federal income tax.
He was helped in his case by another attorney-long in the tax-honesty movement-Larry Beecraft.
I think any of these people would add value to a Ron Paul ticket or Administration.
Go Ron,
Michael Pannone
Bob Barr, Baggage, Flip Flopping and the CIA
I have supported Bob Barr in the past and would be agreeable to having him in Congress again. His voting while in congress was pretty good from a less government perspective.
Mr. Barr played a prominent position in the impeachment of Bill Clinton and this is baggage that would distract from Mr. Paul's message. It might help in the Primary but would be a negative in the General Election.
Barr was a strong supporter of the War on Drugs and adamantly opposed the legalization of medical marijuana. He recently changed his position on this. I could give him the benefit of the doubt on this except when I take into account who he worked for in the 1970's.
From 1971 to 1978, he served as a member of the Central Intelligence Agency (reported on http://en.wikipedia.org/w... ), as legal counsel I believe. I personally would not trust him to be VP based on that single item.
Read the 12th Amendment
Electoral College voters must vote for one candidate for Pres., one for VeeP, and only one of those two choices at most can be from their own State. That means your buddy Jon Roland is out unless he changes his voter registration to another State (like Cheney did in 2000, from TX to WY).
Raising the Barr
Barr is okay, but keep in mind that he just recently disavowed the GOP in favor of the Libertarians, so he's up sh*ts creek with the party. Plus, he's just a Representative. Paul already brings legislative experience to the ticket, his VP should be someone with executive experience. Gary Johnson fits the bill. He's a popular ex-governor with strong credentials.
Bob Barr
Don't forget about Bob Barr. He has the credentials, and can hold his own in a debate.
I THINK CYNTHIA MCKINNEY
I THINK FORMER CONGRESSWOMAN CYNTHIA MCKINNEY WOULD BE A GOOD CHOICE, SHES HONEST, TONS OF COURAGE, SMART, STRONGLY BELIEVES IN THE CONSTITUTION,AND HATES CURRUPT LOBBYIST AS MUCH AS RON PAUL DOES.ANOTHER PLUS WOULD BE IS SHE WOULD DRAW THE WOMANS VOTE AND THE BLACK VOTE AND PUT TO REST ANY ATTEMPS TO SAY RON PAUL IS A RASCIST . ALSO, IF (GOD FORBID) RON PAUL GETS ASSASINATED SHE WOULD STOP AT NOTHING TO GET A PROPER INVESTIGATION UNDERWAY AND PUT THOSE CRIMINALS IN THIER PROPER PLACE. SHE'S A STRONG FIGHTER . ALSO RON PAUL IS 71 YEARS OLD, AND ALTHOUGH HE IS PROBABLY IN BETTER SHAPE THAN ME AT 46, BEING THE PRESIDENT IS A HIGHLY STRESSFULL JOB AND COULD TAKE ITS TOLL ON HIM. SO BOTTOM LINE IF HE SHOULD DIE FOR ANY REASON OR FALL VERY ILL, I WOULD TRUST HER TO THE TAKE OVER THE JOB. I KNOW SHE WAS A DEMOCRAT IN THE PAST,BUT I THINK IF SHE WAS GIVEN THE CALL SHE WOULD DO IT.Sorry about the caps but i didnt notice until i was done and i didnt want to retype it all again
CAPS & McKinney
You don't have to retype your comment to remove the caps. Just copy and paste it into a Word doc, highlight it, hit Shift + F3 twice, and then copy and paste it back into your comment.
BTW, Cynthia McKinney would most likely be remembered most for punching a Capitol Hill police officer. That might be a bit too much baggage.
Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father
that cop deserved it
mckinney punched that cop because he was harassing her and trying to manhandle her. i think he was a plant to mess up her re-elction myself. i hate cops anyways.
Walter Williams
I wrote a letter to Walter Williams several months ago before Dr. Paul announced and, among other things, mentioned that I would like to see a Paul/Williams ticket. He must feel strongly about not running because I received a reply. He mentioned that he believes he can do the most good for the cause where he is right now.
D'oh!
If you write back, please express my strong disagreement. I think he'd make an excellent VP, and any debate featuring him would be fantastic. Plus his race, when combined with his obviously-superior intelligence, would infuriate exactly the right people who *NEED* to be infuriated! ;)
But seriously, I pray he'll reconsider, or at least take a more prominent role than "occasional Limbaugh replacement."
JMR
class
Some people just have too much class to get into politics. That is why we are so lucky that Dr. Paul is running.
No journalists
I hate to be a downer, but a journalist or academic is not an ideal Vice Presidential candidate. Gary Johnson is GREAT - he was a governor who won re-election, did a lot of his state, retired in style, and has since become a triathlete. Everyone should really be lobbying for him, because much of the field are guys whose hearts are in the right place, but who simply don't have the background to run for the office.
New List and Some Ideas
This discussion on the merits of each proposed VP, and the number of suggestions, is better than I expected. Here is the new list:
Baldwin, Chuck
Buchanan, Pat
Carlson, Tucker
Coburn, Tom
Corsi, Jerome
Daniels, Mitch
Dobbs, Lou
Johnson, Gary
Jones, Walter
Keyes, Alan
Kwiatkowski, Karen
Napolitano, Andrew
Palin, Sarah
Rockwell, Lew
Sanford, Mark
Stossel, John
Thiel, Peter
Williams, Walter
What I am thinking now is that, in addition to creating a poll, perhaps these proposed VPs should also be rated against several important indicators of fitness using a scale (such as 1...5, or low...high, or hurt...help). I propose the following categories:
- Constitutional faithfulness
- Debating skill
- Leadership experience
- Name recognition
- Charisma/Personality
- Knowledge depth/breadth
- Protected class
I almost hate even mentioning that last one but, as some of you have rightly pointed out, certain personal characteristics (age, race, gender, etc.) may significantly affect a campaign in this less than perfect world.
With such an expanded poll, the results would be more meaningful than just a straight up or down vote for each candidate. I am hoping that this exercise produces something useful that we could hand to the Ron Paul campaign. Maybe they are already paying attention :)
Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father
I propose...
this category:
First Choice
That's The Purpose
of the basic poll. Expanding the poll with a list of pertinent characteristics would provide additional information on opinions concerning their perceived strengths and weaknesses.
Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father
Bill Moyers-Secretary of Education
I am enjoying reading up on all the "nominees" in this thread. I have even ventured into cabinet positions and am learning just how hard it is to find a "good man/woman" who has the experience to be accepted by the public and yet who has not been compromised. Dr. Paul sets such a high standard.
But as I continue the process, I keep trying to find the perfect place for the one journalist who busts through "general consensus" with clarity, civility and perfect logic. That would be Bill Moyers. After first considering him as VP, I decided for a variety of reasons that he would make an incredible Sec. of State .Finally settled on Secretary of Education. Found he was once offered that position and it was the only thing that really interested him:
He was asked: "If a president were to call you up to serve again full-time in the White House, would you do it?"
http://utopia.utexas.edu/...
He responded: "I've faced that. Jimmy Carter asked me to be his chief of staff in 1978 midway through his term, and I declined. Then he asked me to be the first secretary of education, and I declined, though I was more tempted by that because I had worked on education legislation in the White House. Bill Clinton sent emissaries twice to ask me to be chief of staff, once after Mack McLarty retired and then a year later. They still see me the way I used to be. They remember my youth. And I explained each time that I had crossed the Rubicon, that once I had chosen to leave the White House and be a journalist, I was going to stay on that side of the fence. I really don't believe in going back and forth. I was flattered but not tempted in the least.
In one sense I regret that, because journalism has no power. It's government that can pick our pockets, or send us to jail or run a highway through our rose garden. Government is where things happen. And I believe in government. I'm a strong believer in the necessity for us to act collectively as a society to solve our problems."
Well, we are now at a place in history where the word "Statesman" comes into play i.e., experiential wisdom coupled with life-long insatiable curiosity about the world in which we live, ability to ask the right questions and listen impartially, and finally the rare gift of discernment. That's Ron Paul. It is also Bill Moyer.
Perhaps, as a final thrust to make a huge difference in all the areas that interest him and the opportunity to leave a legacy to the next generations, Bill Moyer might be persuaded to once again enter public life. I hold out that hope.
Only One Duty for the Secretary
There is one overriding consideration for any Secretary of Education in a Paul administration - that he or she will make his or her # 1 priority the immediate dismantling of the Department of Education. Do you think that Bill Moyers would agree?
The same goes for all of the other Cabinet leaders, outside of the those chosen for State, Justice and Defense - the three that Ron Paul believes have Constitutional support.
Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father
Would Bill Moyers Abolish Dept of Education
You sent me back to the drawing board, Good Samaritan. Just read an interview Lew Rockwell did with Bill Moyers. Sadly, unless he has changed drastically in the several years since that interview, he would not fit in a Ron Paul cabinet. It is hard for me to accept because I don't know of any journalist through the years who has educated me more or who has so courageously attacked difficult issues that nobody else seemed to touch. He is still doing that. And he is a diplomat...much the same temperament as Ron Paul. He is also almost universally respected.
Moyers has spoken passionately about all the failures of the education system. He has admitted that No Child Left Behind is a huge failure and, I think, he has spoken out against Agenda 21 (not sure.).
But would he agree with Ron Paul about abolishing the Department of Education? I'm afraid you are right...he would not. But I wish..........
Secretary of Defense - William Lind
I cannot think of anyone that comes even close to his insights into modern warfare. He realized long ago that technology doesn't win wars anymore, and that this new generation of warfare requires a drastically different military and way of thinking. Unfortunately, no matter how many times he is correct, he is constantly waved away by the Pentagon because it means that they couldn't ask for huge sums of money anymore.
Info on William Lind
http://www.sourcewatch.or...
Also, who was the general (or was he a general?...asian, I think) who dared to tell the current administration it would take a 100,000 troops to win in Iraq and was fired for doing so? He deserves a "spot" somewhere under Lind maybe?
At the time that happened I remember reading a little about him and liking what he said.
That would be...
General Eric Shinseki (ret.)
...and it was more like 500,000 troops to conquer and secure Iraq. ;)
my personal choice...
would be Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico. Governor Johnson was called "Governor No" (just like Ron Paul is Dr. No) because he vetoed any unbalanced budget or any budget that included too much spending. Gary was also on the forefront of drug decriminalization. He may not be as well known as Walter Williams, but he's been a governor with a proven libertarian record. He's a successful businessman and a sharp guy who's hiked Mt. Everest and run in several marathons.
The drawbacks to Johnson are that, as far as I know, he's currently a ski bum and he's admitted to a lot of marijuana use. None of that disqualifies him in my eyes - he's ideal in my opinion, but unfortunately, that might drive voters away from Dr. Paul once the MSM starts hurling insults at him.
Karen Kwiatkowski and Walter Williams are both great as well - I'd love to see either as veep, and both bring a lot of positives to the table. I would only choose Governor Johnson over them because of his legislative experience and proven executive track record.
Kwiatkowski is great because she's a die-hard libertarian and very intelligent. Also, because many voters look only at the surface, I think it helps that she's a woman, and a tough one with a very impressive military record. And with her experience at the Pentagon, she'll be able to shut anyone down on Iraq. This will effectively end the myth that the military is happy with the status quo with respect to foreign policy.
I really like Williams as well - he's a brilliant economist and fun to read and listen to. And, once again, I believe it's beneficial to have a minority running mate, especially if the MSM tries to paint Dr. Paul as a racist (an absolutely ridiculous claim, but they'll try it).
As for Patrick Buchanan, he has good name recognition and he's great on foreign policy. I really appreciate the support he gives Dr. Paul, but he's a bit too socially conservative for my taste. In his 2000 campaign, he complained that Vermont allowed gay marriage and he condemned that. We don't need someone like that held up as the libertarian ideal, IMO.
My list:
1. Gary Johnson
2. Karen Kwiatkowski
3. Walter Williams
I'd rank Williams third because I think Johnson's executive record and Kwiatkowski's military record are too impressive to overlook.
Sanford or Thiel
Two good directions he could go. Many excellent choices, but I agree that Williams is an obvious member of the Economic advisory team, and Napolitano serves as either Atty. Gen. or Supreme Court nominee. What Dr. Paul is lacking in many voters' minds is executive experience, and having that in the VP would balance the ticket. Sanford has Chief Executive experience in the State of South Carolina, while Thiel spent years running Pay Pal, and I believe that business leadership experience is way underrated. Both are eloquent speakers and can vocalize Dr. Paul's ideas well, because they believe in them. But each brings a different value to the race, in addition to the obvious. Sanford brings credibility in the solid South, which will be important for any Republican to win in a general election, and particularly important to help deflect confusion over the anti-war rhetoric that doesn't go over as well there as in some regions. On the other hand, Thiel, to be blunt, brings much needed capital to the race. This is likely to be a high spending campaign, and having a bankroll might make it more doable.
Either of these choices offers a great candidate who fully supports Paul's ideals, but we'll need to wait until we're closer to the date to decide which direction will be more important at the time.
I love the Irony of...
... appointing former NM federal district attorney David Iglesias as AG. ;)
Think about that for a moment. :D
VP option
How about Congressman Walter Jones?
Nah... Too old.
Dr Paul is my one exemption to my personal age rule of "no one over retirement age."
We need a VeeP who is 58 or less when sworn-in so that he won't be too old for his own two terms after 8 years of Dr Paul.
As I said below, we need continuity in office, folks!
Lew Rockwell
How about Lew Rockwell?
Impractical
If he were chosen, hundreds millions of face masks would have to be handed out over the country to prevent Rockwell from rocking their face off.
VP Choices
For VP choices,
I like Lou Dobbs of CNN, he is a populist, against the war in Iraq, against illegal immigration, is an economist and understands the problems with printing money. He also is against NAFTA, GATT, WTO etc. and tends to get support from all sides of the political spectrum like Ron Paul
http://www.loudobbs4presi...
or Dr. Tom Coburn Senator from Oklahoma (who also delivered 4000 babies), but he did vote for the war, but he is great on alot of other issues.
Lou Dobbs is a Bad Choice
Lou Dobbs is in favor of Real ID!
Lou Dobbs is againt the North American Union
The one thing about Lou Dobbs is that if you give him information on a subject, he will actually investigate it and come to a conlusion.
I can't really find anywhere that Dobbs said he is for the Real ID, the only thing I could find is the following video of him saying that his home state does fine about matching social security numbers to Driver License - so whats the need for the real id?
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Dobbs is against the North American Union and not sure why he would be for the real id, so if you could provide the info on that I would like to know.
Lou Dobbs and Real ID
The video you reference says it all. Lou only has the pro-Real ID side of the issue on his show and Lou says "yeah" to everything that evil Sennsenbrenner says. Why didn't Lou invite someone from the Cato Institute on his show? I don't know why he is in favor of Real ID, but since he is we can't trust him as VP. Also, his TV show has had another pro-Real ID episode when Kitty was hosting. Now that I think of it, the only show that has had both sides of the issue was one that was hosted by Mika. Most shows ignore the issue, which is astounding since implementation is coming up quickly and most Americans still don't know anything about it. If they knew about it they might become concerned, find out that Ron Paul is strongly against it, and vote for Ron Paul.
That's correct (unfortunately)
I watch the Lou Dobbs Tonight show most nights (thanks to my DVR), because he will at least cover SOME important political issues that most everyone else in the MSM - especially CNN - won't cover. However, I sure wouldn't say that he's the best choice for VP.
Personally, I'd rather see Walter Williams on the ticket... I'd love to see him "school" Obama the way Dr. Paul did Rudy G. at a debate! But there are a lot of good choices out there, as this topic has shown.
Dr. Chuck Baldwin
Consider Chuck Baldwin
He will pull in:
1. Much of the NRA vote (in the millions). He has been a featured speaker many times and is loved by them as a vocal pro second amendment American.
2. Much of the Christian conservative vote (in the millions). He is a Baptist preacher in Florida with a well established base.
3. And ALL of the Constitution Party vote (also in the millions). He was the Vice Presidential running mate on the Constitution Party ticket in 2004. FYI: The Constitution Party (the third largest political party in the country) may not run a candidate and put their weight behind Dr. Paul if “things†go right.
Dr. Baldwin is a strict Constitutionalist with a Founder’s heart. He is of course well educated and an incredible speaker. And - something I don't like to consider - but if Dr. Paul was... well... (I cant even say it). Lets just say Dr. Baldwin would be the next best thing if the need were to arise.
Check him out at www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. He is definitely worth placement in the proposed poll. Many of the other names suggested sound good too.
No preachers or other
No preachers or other delusionals please. Religion is mind kontrol and anyone professing religion must be presumed to be mentally unstable.
Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas
"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."
Delusional?
If you think religion is mind control then you'd better not vote for Ron Paul, who doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve but is a Christian and believes that our rights come from the Creator.
Now I'm an agnostic myself but have no quarrel with a Christian who actually tries to adhere to the moral principles of his religion. (Bombing people into Democracy is not a Christian act.)
Alleged Christian George Bush, on the other hand, is violating at least four of the Ten Commandments:
Thou shalt not steal (oil)
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods (oil)
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor (WMDs)
Thou shalt not kill.
No Preachers - No Revolution
Please take time to read about the influence of preachers on our colonial forefathers. Preachers were arguably the most influential men in America at that time. It was the preachers who called their congregations to declare their independence by force of arms.
There was no TV and no Internet, just sermons that brought the Word of God to bear on the pressing issues of their day. The majority of Americans in those days were Calvinistic in their understanding of Scripture and their view of the world. They saw political events as part of a larger plan that God had designed for them to fulfill in the last days. They would not tolerate the encroachment of an authoritarian government into their lives to constrain them from their first duty - to live their lives under subjection to God alone.
The Ron Paul Revolution could use such preachers today. Let's not forget the lessons of our own history, of the first Revolution that brought about American independence. Those colonial preachers represented many different denominations but they agreed with each other and with us that "Freedom is Popular". Any preacher who supports Ron Paul is a patriot on the right team and the right side of history. As Ben Franklin said at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father
I guess you missed this, then...
http://www.covenantnews.c...
If you're an American, you'd best get used to the idea of "delusionals" under "mind control" being in positions of power, since most of us in this country fit your description. Your viewpoint is shared among a fairly vocal minority on the net, but would be viewed in extremely unfavorable light by the vast majority of the people in the party whose nomination Ron Paul is seeking, and quite a large chunk of the rest of the people as well. While we're all entitled to our beliefs, we aren't able to force them onto others; if you want to prevail on this point, you have a large task ahead; you're playing king-of-the-hill on a popular mountain. :-)
I can, however, see a pragmatic point in what you say as it applies specifically to preachers. Many who would not bat an eye at someone being a member of a church would look askance at a preacher. There are others who would find it an attractive quality. There is a pragmatic numbers game to be played there.
VP
I can't think of a good candidate. But for sure I wouldn't trust anyone who has any connection with Rush Lamebaugh...he is nothing but a Bush prostitute.
Check the Record
Occasionally hosting for Rush Limbaugh does not disqualify Professor Williams. Rush is not a libertarian but he obviously admires Williams who is a libertarian.
Here are two important facts to consider:
1) Williams has endorsed Ron Paul for President.
2) Ron Paul mentioned Williams once when asked about a potential running mate. From the Washington Post, May 25, 2007:
Sleuth: If you were to defy the polls and the odds and win the nomination, who would be your running mate?
Paul: Well, I don't know, but if I won, you know, I'd want a recount. You know, lets be certain about what's going on here.
But a running mate. Somebody like Walter Williams. Walter Williams is a very good economist. John Stossel, John Stossel would be good.
Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father
Lots of Great Choices!
Wow! This is becoming an impressive list for serious consideration. Some of those recommended may be better suited to roles other than VP, but I think they all deserve to be included on a poll.
So far we have (alpha order):
Buchanan, Patrick
Carlson, Tucker
Corsi, Jerome
Daniels, Mitch
Keyes, Alan
Kwiatkowski, Karen
Napolitano, Andrew
Palin, Sarah
Sanford, Mark
Stossel, John
Thiel, Peter
Williams, Walter
I recommend the resource at www.ontheissues.org for examining positions on candidates who have profiles there. There is a "Worlds Smallest Political Quiz" graph at the end of each profile. Take a look at the one for Ron Paul (www.ontheissues.org/Ron_P...) and then use his graph as a short-hand for quick comparison.
Are there any more suggestions?
Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father
Too much "political baggage"...
...with most of these guys.
Williams, though favored by Paul, is a bad choice due to his differences on foreign policy.
I'd narrow it these three, and lean toward Sanford (for the primary bump, if this were announced before the primaries; heck, Dr Paul might hint at it just for the attention/free media it'd get in SC):
Napolitano, Andrew (I'd rather hold him aside for a USSC bench seat)
Palin, Sarah (Alaska is just too small and she's too unknown; she'd make a great SecState, which would get her name and face well known enough to be a perfect VeeP pick for a Sanford run)
Sanford, Mark (he's my choice, he's young, so he'd definitely not be too old for his own run after Dr Paul)
As for the rest:
Buchanan, Patrick - Baggage
Carlson, Tucker - No experience
Corsi, Jerome - He'd get too long in the tooth for a Pres bid after a Paul Admin (we need continuity in office, folks!)
Daniels, Mitch - baggage-lite, but still some baggage
Keyes, Alan - carpet-bagger
Kwiatkowski, Karen - no experience (maybe a high appointment at DoD?)
Stossel, John - no experience (he got assualted by a pro-wrestler on film in the 80s too, who needs that kind of stuff in a political ad against us?)
Thiel, Peter - too young, no experience... although he'd be handy to keep around to be groomed
Alan Keyes
Although I also like Buchanan, Keyes (after a crash course in Austrian Economics) would be the ideal candidate. He is a not very diplomatic diplomat, but believes in the Declaration and Constitution. Any ignorance he may have is easily fixed, but does anyone remember the Larry King debate with Bush (yes, W) and McCain arguing like toddlers with Dr. Keyes watching them and pointing out CNN was international and neither was showing leadership? He would be an anti-Cheney, active, but for liberty, and using his version of diplomacy around the world.
Anyone who has heard him speak knows he is articulate. Paul/Keyes would utterly shred Clinton/Obama.
He has campaigned before.
Alan Keyes is pro Iraq war
There is a clip on youtube where he syas that the iraq war is not difficult for the US - here Plus he is too much of a religious/social conservative.
Obama would win
When he ran against Obama in the senate race, the media was constantly playing videos of him saying things that most people would consider crazy. The election wasn't even close (Although much of that can be blamed for the short notice moving and campaigning, and the inability to set up a proper campaign). He wasn't liked at all.
Tucker Carlson for VP
Tucker is perfect choice being Ron's biggest fan on media TV and if we can convince him to go back to the bow tie, it would look neat and retro in the White House.
Judge Andrew Napolitano
Judge Andrew Napolitano could best serve on the Supreme Court. I'm sure Dr. Paul would nominate him for that position. Plus he is young and would be there for a long time.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson
Judge Andrew Napolitano for VP
I'd recommend Judge Andrew Napolitano. He has HUGE (as in Donald Trump's pronunciation) name recognition from being Fox News' Judicial Analyst, and has written two excellent books on the Constitution. In them, the Judge is equally critical of both the Rats and the Poobicants. Plus, he's Italian and from Jersey sos hes got youse know who behind him (just kidding)... but he would really put NY in play with Hillary/Giuliani/Bloomberg/Nader candidates.
Paul / Napolitano - now that's the ticket.
Perhaps Peter Thiel?
I've recently learned about a very interesting guy named Peter Thiel. You can learn more about him here:
http://www.theadvocates.o...
and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...
Besides being libertarian-minded, he's mega-rich (always a bonus), with a philanthropic bent towards liberty and biomedical/technology issues.
If not Thiel, I like the idea of John Stossel simply because the vote-getting power that comes simply from being a recognized television figure should not to be underestimated.